I hope this doesn't stimulate a bad reaction, but I wish to respectfully clarify my point.
Analogies are ALWAYS inexact, as no two situations are the same. We use analogies to assert that some fragment of one situation may apply to some fragment of another. A common and easy way to brush aside any analogy, without exception, is to point o…
I hope this doesn't stimulate a bad reaction, but I wish to respectfully clarify my point.
Analogies are ALWAYS inexact, as no two situations are the same. We use analogies to assert that some fragment of one situation may apply to some fragment of another. A common and easy way to brush aside any analogy, without exception, is to point out some difference in the two cases. The question often not addressed is "how relevant is that difference" to the point being made.
For example, whether bombing is or is not a potentially key component of a strategy to remove an enemy from power does not depend on whether that enemy was the sole aggressor (or was even an aggressor at all). That's not relevant to the facet of the analogy being asserted, any more than the fact the the Nazi's spoke a different language than the Arabs in Gaza. When we shift between "moral justifications" and "military effectiveness" as if they were the same thing, we can get confused. One can assert that (1) bombing Gaza has no military effectiveness (regardless of whether it's morally justified), or that (2) bombing Gaza (whether it is effective or not) is not morally justified. I was addressing the former only in the quoted segment; the latter is a good but different question.
As for the evacuation - again, not very relevant to the question of military effectiveness, but possibly relevant to debates about morality.
Nobody is trying to make a general or broad comparison of Israel/Gaza to Allies/Nazis. I was comparing a SINGLE FACET of one situation to a single facet of anther, and that IS possible by paying attention to history, not ignoring it. I hope the difference is clear.
There is a possibly accidental strawman involved here as well. I'm a fairly rational person, so I never suggested that bombing alone would be sufficient to remove Hamas from power, and I have never seen anybody anywhere so assert, so that's built of straw. Certainly the IDF has no such illusions, or they would have reduced their casualties to near zero by avoiding the bloody ground invasion and just using bombs. The ONLY thing in question (in either side of the analogy) is "can the task be accomplished without bombing" (debatable), not "could it be accomplished by bombing alone" (EVERYONE agrees that it could not).
Can Hamas be completely eliminated by military means (with or without bombing) - every single person? Of course not. Nor can their Islamist radicalism be eliminated from the world. But there is no need to eliminate them, only to greatly reduce their ability to cause harm to others. Can the ability of Hamas (or a successor) to attack Israel be greatly reduced such that it would take at least a decade before they could attempt such an attack again? That might be militarily possible. Hamas has spent over a decade and billions of dollars preparing for this event (financed by diverted aid money, and taxes on tunnel smuggling from Egypt, their main sources of income; and supported by arms from Iran), and their explicit promise to keep doing it could be interrupted/delayed by destroying much of that infrastructure. And it's possible that their support from Iran would dry up in that period of time. That is, they might lack the "support and financing they need" in your words. No guarantees, but it's not an absurd proposition, especially if Israel can in the meanwhile restore their normalization process with Saudi Arabia, which Hamas felt to be an existential threat to their power.
“A common and easy way to brush aside any analogy, without exception, is to point out some difference in the two cases”
Of course. And yes, I’m aware that analogies are never perfect. But I didn’t just brush the analogy aside, I explained, in some detail, why the two situations have almost nothing in common except that civilians are being bombed. Analogies don’t work if the two situations being compared are too dissimilar.
Comparing just the single facet of bombing civilians without acknowledging the enormous differences in why they’re being bombed or what led up to it or what else could be done to avoid it *requires* that you ignore a lot of history. And that history is extraordinarily relevant. It’s not clear to me at all how you think you’re paying attention to it.
For example, I talked about who was the aggressor because it speaks to moral justification. Otherwise, why not talk purely about whether the Nazi’s strategy was militarily effective and ignore everything else? How else were they to achieve their goal of world domination with the fewest Nazi casualties possible?
Yes, bombing is almost always an effective strategy for killing or weakening your enemies. Was that the point you were making though? I don’t think it was. Otherwise an analogy was unnecessary. Israel’s bombs are doing an excellent job of killing Palestinians.
So maybe the question was, “will bombing Gaza into oblivion weaken Hamas’ fighting ability?” And yes, no doubt it will. But then why not go the nuclear route? That would certainly be militarily effective in reducing Hamas’ fighting ability even further. And, of course, the sole reason, which is sadly not persuasive to some in Israel’s military, is that the cost of innocent civilians would be too great to morally defend. War always involves moral considerations.
Even just using conventional weapons, Israel could kill every single person living in Gaza, including all the Hamas members obviously, without a single IDF soldier setting foot in the Gaza Strip. Near 100% military effectiveness. A little shakier on the moral front though.
So no, the only question is not can the task of removing Hamas be accomplished without bombing.
The questions (plural) are, can it be accomplished without bombing and killing 11,000 (and counting) civilians and destroying the homes of over a million? Can it be accomplished by ending the illegal occupation in the West Bank? Can it be accomplished by ending the blockade on Gaza? Can it be accomplished by accepting a two-state solution according to the 1967 borders? Can it be accomplished by convincing Iran to stop supplying weapons and funding to Hamas? Can it be accomplished by relinquishing the idea that one particular piece of land has been reserved for Jews by the creator of the universe?
The answers to many of these questions is on the “probably/yes” end of the spectrum. And none of these options were available to the Allies as they fought the Nazis. This is why I think the analogy is flawed.
> "why not go the nuclear route? That would certainly be militarily effective in reducing Hamas’ fighting ability even further. And, of course, the sole reason, which is sadly not persuasive to some in Israel’s military, is that the cost of innocent civilians would be too great to morally defend."
Could you provide any links to those in the Israeli military who have stated that using nuclear weapons on Gaza would be morally acceptable as a means of eliminating Hamas? I've never seen that but I would like to know about it if true.
You said "I don't believe Hamas can be bombed out of Gaza."
My basic response was to that specific point, full stop. I was not saying what the best answer was, or who was more moral, or any of the other important issues. I was NOT trying to distill the entire conflict down to one question, I was only addressing that one question on its own.
From your response, I think you may have construed my answer far more broadly than I intended it, and then pushed back on that broad interpretation.
My point is that there is nobody saying that bombing alone could eliminate Hamas as a force to contend with (where by bombing we are discussion the kind which Israel is actually doing and you are critiquing, not some fictional nuclear leveling).
Where there could be different opinions, is whether Hamas can be effectively eliminated without bombing as a part of the effort. That is, there is no "bombing alone" question on the table, but there could be a "bombing plus other things" vs "no bombing, only other things" debate.
Reread the quote from you at the beginning; were you saying that you don't believe that bombing alone can remove Hamas, or that you don't believe that bombing can even be a component of a broader effort to remove Hamas? Since nobody is questioning the former, I thought you were closer to asserting the latter. That seems to be the more respectful interpretation, not the more easily impugned.
You are correct that there are MANY, MANY other questions (including those you list) which also bear on the overall problems, and if you believed my narrowly focused dissent about bombing as a component was attempting to bypass or supercede all of the other considerations, then I can see how you would disagree. I would too. But my intended clarification was much more modest in scope.
I hope this doesn't stimulate a bad reaction, but I wish to respectfully clarify my point.
Analogies are ALWAYS inexact, as no two situations are the same. We use analogies to assert that some fragment of one situation may apply to some fragment of another. A common and easy way to brush aside any analogy, without exception, is to point out some difference in the two cases. The question often not addressed is "how relevant is that difference" to the point being made.
For example, whether bombing is or is not a potentially key component of a strategy to remove an enemy from power does not depend on whether that enemy was the sole aggressor (or was even an aggressor at all). That's not relevant to the facet of the analogy being asserted, any more than the fact the the Nazi's spoke a different language than the Arabs in Gaza. When we shift between "moral justifications" and "military effectiveness" as if they were the same thing, we can get confused. One can assert that (1) bombing Gaza has no military effectiveness (regardless of whether it's morally justified), or that (2) bombing Gaza (whether it is effective or not) is not morally justified. I was addressing the former only in the quoted segment; the latter is a good but different question.
As for the evacuation - again, not very relevant to the question of military effectiveness, but possibly relevant to debates about morality.
Nobody is trying to make a general or broad comparison of Israel/Gaza to Allies/Nazis. I was comparing a SINGLE FACET of one situation to a single facet of anther, and that IS possible by paying attention to history, not ignoring it. I hope the difference is clear.
There is a possibly accidental strawman involved here as well. I'm a fairly rational person, so I never suggested that bombing alone would be sufficient to remove Hamas from power, and I have never seen anybody anywhere so assert, so that's built of straw. Certainly the IDF has no such illusions, or they would have reduced their casualties to near zero by avoiding the bloody ground invasion and just using bombs. The ONLY thing in question (in either side of the analogy) is "can the task be accomplished without bombing" (debatable), not "could it be accomplished by bombing alone" (EVERYONE agrees that it could not).
Can Hamas be completely eliminated by military means (with or without bombing) - every single person? Of course not. Nor can their Islamist radicalism be eliminated from the world. But there is no need to eliminate them, only to greatly reduce their ability to cause harm to others. Can the ability of Hamas (or a successor) to attack Israel be greatly reduced such that it would take at least a decade before they could attempt such an attack again? That might be militarily possible. Hamas has spent over a decade and billions of dollars preparing for this event (financed by diverted aid money, and taxes on tunnel smuggling from Egypt, their main sources of income; and supported by arms from Iran), and their explicit promise to keep doing it could be interrupted/delayed by destroying much of that infrastructure. And it's possible that their support from Iran would dry up in that period of time. That is, they might lack the "support and financing they need" in your words. No guarantees, but it's not an absurd proposition, especially if Israel can in the meanwhile restore their normalization process with Saudi Arabia, which Hamas felt to be an existential threat to their power.
“A common and easy way to brush aside any analogy, without exception, is to point out some difference in the two cases”
Of course. And yes, I’m aware that analogies are never perfect. But I didn’t just brush the analogy aside, I explained, in some detail, why the two situations have almost nothing in common except that civilians are being bombed. Analogies don’t work if the two situations being compared are too dissimilar.
Comparing just the single facet of bombing civilians without acknowledging the enormous differences in why they’re being bombed or what led up to it or what else could be done to avoid it *requires* that you ignore a lot of history. And that history is extraordinarily relevant. It’s not clear to me at all how you think you’re paying attention to it.
For example, I talked about who was the aggressor because it speaks to moral justification. Otherwise, why not talk purely about whether the Nazi’s strategy was militarily effective and ignore everything else? How else were they to achieve their goal of world domination with the fewest Nazi casualties possible?
Yes, bombing is almost always an effective strategy for killing or weakening your enemies. Was that the point you were making though? I don’t think it was. Otherwise an analogy was unnecessary. Israel’s bombs are doing an excellent job of killing Palestinians.
So maybe the question was, “will bombing Gaza into oblivion weaken Hamas’ fighting ability?” And yes, no doubt it will. But then why not go the nuclear route? That would certainly be militarily effective in reducing Hamas’ fighting ability even further. And, of course, the sole reason, which is sadly not persuasive to some in Israel’s military, is that the cost of innocent civilians would be too great to morally defend. War always involves moral considerations.
Even just using conventional weapons, Israel could kill every single person living in Gaza, including all the Hamas members obviously, without a single IDF soldier setting foot in the Gaza Strip. Near 100% military effectiveness. A little shakier on the moral front though.
So no, the only question is not can the task of removing Hamas be accomplished without bombing.
The questions (plural) are, can it be accomplished without bombing and killing 11,000 (and counting) civilians and destroying the homes of over a million? Can it be accomplished by ending the illegal occupation in the West Bank? Can it be accomplished by ending the blockade on Gaza? Can it be accomplished by accepting a two-state solution according to the 1967 borders? Can it be accomplished by convincing Iran to stop supplying weapons and funding to Hamas? Can it be accomplished by relinquishing the idea that one particular piece of land has been reserved for Jews by the creator of the universe?
The answers to many of these questions is on the “probably/yes” end of the spectrum. And none of these options were available to the Allies as they fought the Nazis. This is why I think the analogy is flawed.
> "why not go the nuclear route? That would certainly be militarily effective in reducing Hamas’ fighting ability even further. And, of course, the sole reason, which is sadly not persuasive to some in Israel’s military, is that the cost of innocent civilians would be too great to morally defend."
Could you provide any links to those in the Israeli military who have stated that using nuclear weapons on Gaza would be morally acceptable as a means of eliminating Hamas? I've never seen that but I would like to know about it if true.
Sorry, not in the military, a politician.
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-minister-amichai-eliyahu-suspend-benjamin-netanyahu-nuclear-bomb-gaza-hamas-war/
Ah. I think I may see what's going on here.
You said "I don't believe Hamas can be bombed out of Gaza."
My basic response was to that specific point, full stop. I was not saying what the best answer was, or who was more moral, or any of the other important issues. I was NOT trying to distill the entire conflict down to one question, I was only addressing that one question on its own.
From your response, I think you may have construed my answer far more broadly than I intended it, and then pushed back on that broad interpretation.
My point is that there is nobody saying that bombing alone could eliminate Hamas as a force to contend with (where by bombing we are discussion the kind which Israel is actually doing and you are critiquing, not some fictional nuclear leveling).
Where there could be different opinions, is whether Hamas can be effectively eliminated without bombing as a part of the effort. That is, there is no "bombing alone" question on the table, but there could be a "bombing plus other things" vs "no bombing, only other things" debate.
Reread the quote from you at the beginning; were you saying that you don't believe that bombing alone can remove Hamas, or that you don't believe that bombing can even be a component of a broader effort to remove Hamas? Since nobody is questioning the former, I thought you were closer to asserting the latter. That seems to be the more respectful interpretation, not the more easily impugned.
You are correct that there are MANY, MANY other questions (including those you list) which also bear on the overall problems, and if you believed my narrowly focused dissent about bombing as a component was attempting to bypass or supercede all of the other considerations, then I can see how you would disagree. I would too. But my intended clarification was much more modest in scope.
Peace.