Mini-Heap posts usually appear when 7 or so new items accumulate in the Heap of Links, a collection of items from around the web that may be of interest to philosophers.
The Heap of Links consists partly of suggestions from readers; if you find something online that you think would be of interest to the philosophical community, please send it in for consideration for the Heap. Thank you.
Prof. Wolfendale claims that Israel has invoked Hamas’s brutal tactics to provide cover for its own war crimes. This is part of a historical pattern, she says, in which democratic countries – she mentions the U.S. and France specifically – invoke an enemy’s brutality, inhumanity, etc. to justify committing war crimes themselves.
Whatever the merits of her historical claims, surely there are cases where attacks that would otherwise amount to war crimes really are justified by an enemy’s brutal tactics. For example, the laws of war permit certain kinds of attacks against civilian targets (which would otherwise be war crimes) when an enemy uses them for military purposes.
This is exactly what Israel has argued is the case in Gaza. Namely, Hamas has made the brutal strategic choice to embed its military within and beneath Gaza’s civilian life. As a result, there is no way to defeat Hamas without incurring high numbers of civilian casualties.
While some countries may have made similar claims disingenuously in the past, that does not mean Israel is doing so here. And indeed, leading independent military experts have argued stridently to the contrary (see, e.g., here and here).
Josh Sheptow
1 year ago
RE Link #5: Prof. Wolfendale claims that Israel has invoked Hamas’s brutal tactics to provide cover for its own war crimes. This is part of a historical pattern, she says, in which democratic countries – she mentions the US and France specifically – invoke an enemy’s brutality, inhumanity, etc. to justify committing war crimes themselves.
Whatever the merits of her historical claims, surely there are cases where attacks that would otherwise amount to war crimes really are justified by an enemy’s brutal tactics. For example, the laws of war permit certain kinds of attacks against civilian targets (which would otherwise be a war crime) when an enemy uses them for military purposes.
This is exactly what Israel has argued is the case in Gaza. Namely, Hamas has made the brutal, strategic choice to embed its military within and beneath Gaza’s civilian life. As a result, there is no way to defeat Hamas without incurring high numbers of civilian casualties.
While some countries may have made similar claims disingenuously in the past, that does not mean Israel is doing so here. And indeed, leading independent military experts have argued stridently to the contrary (see, e.g., here and here).
Prof. Wolfendale claims that Israel has invoked Hamas’s brutal tactics to provide cover for its own war crimes. This is part of a historical pattern, she says, in which democratic countries – she mentions the U.S. and France specifically – invoke an enemy’s brutality, inhumanity, etc. to justify committing war crimes themselves.
Whatever the merits of her historical claims, surely there are cases where attacks that would otherwise amount to war crimes really are justified by an enemy’s brutal tactics. For example, the laws of war permit certain kinds of attacks against civilian targets (which would otherwise be war crimes) when an enemy uses them for military purposes.
This is exactly what Israel has argued is the case in Gaza. Namely, Hamas has made the brutal strategic choice to embed its military within and beneath Gaza’s civilian life. As a result, there is no way to defeat Hamas without incurring high numbers of civilian casualties.
While some countries may have made similar claims disingenuously in the past, that does not mean Israel is doing so here. And indeed, leading independent military experts have argued stridently to the contrary (see, e.g., here and here).
RE Link #5: Prof. Wolfendale claims that Israel has invoked Hamas’s brutal tactics to provide cover for its own war crimes. This is part of a historical pattern, she says, in which democratic countries – she mentions the US and France specifically – invoke an enemy’s brutality, inhumanity, etc. to justify committing war crimes themselves.
Whatever the merits of her historical claims, surely there are cases where attacks that would otherwise amount to war crimes really are justified by an enemy’s brutal tactics. For example, the laws of war permit certain kinds of attacks against civilian targets (which would otherwise be a war crime) when an enemy uses them for military purposes.
This is exactly what Israel has argued is the case in Gaza. Namely, Hamas has made the brutal, strategic choice to embed its military within and beneath Gaza’s civilian life. As a result, there is no way to defeat Hamas without incurring high numbers of civilian casualties.
While some countries may have made similar claims disingenuously in the past, that does not mean Israel is doing so here. And indeed, leading independent military experts have argued stridently to the contrary (see, e.g., here and here).