Q&A: Why aren’t we acting this way against Gaza? I can’t understand it
Why aren’t we acting this way against Gaza? I can’t understand it
Question
Why doesn’t the army operate with a technique of: for every rocket, flatten one hundred square meters of the area it was launched from, after telling people to leave? That way, slowly or very quickly, completely destroyed “zones” would be created in Gaza, and in my opinion this would with over 90 percent certainty end the whole story. Aside from the deterrence—they would think thousands of times before every launch if they knew that just a few minutes after the launch, one hundred square meters from the launch site would be completely leveled—it would also simply make it technically impossible to launch rockets, because they launch them from places with cover.
And these flattenings should be done quickly, before the “world” starts saying this and that, or if not quickly then just tell the “world” the truth—that this is return fire, and that if the terror thugs don’t shoot, then there won’t be return fire.
And by the way, these flattenings should be done with “dumb bombs” that are simply dropped from the air, not with all the sophisticated missiles that cost many millions.
Answer
That’s a question for people who are more knowledgeable than I am. But it seems to me that flattening an entire area is not so simple. Even bringing down one building is no simple operation.
Beyond that, my son once suggested an idea that seems to me much better. Set up a website listing buildings and areas that are pre-targeted in a fixed predetermined order. Every rocket that is fired would trigger an automatic response that destroys a building or buildings in Gaza (without human intervention), so that the person who fired the rocket is the one who destroyed the building. Everyone, including Gaza civilians, would be able to see on the site which building is next and take care (leave) if they want to. That way one could retire. Every rocket fired would automatically destroy a building according to a fixed predetermined order. It seems to me that this could create pretty effective deterrence.
Discussion on Answer
A stupid approach.
The right approach should be that for every rocket in Hamas’s possession, a member of Knesset in the State of Israel should be fired.
And for every rocket that is launched, a member of Knesset should be sent to prison.
Why shoot rockets at Gaza in a way that could harm many innocent people? You can simply cut off the electricity supply…
Regards, Thomas Edison
Seriously, do you think it’s immoral to stop supplying them with electricity and water and money (I don’t know what else we supply to Gaza)? On the one hand, in the end everything we give them turns into rockets against us; on the other hand, it would presumably harm innocent people in Gaza.
Is the question directed at me? Where did I write that it’s immoral?
Nice idea, your son’s website idea, but what difference does it make whether there is human intervention or not? I don’t see even the slightest tiny trace of a difference from a moral point of view.
A typical debate, but in my opinion here it’s different from our usual debate. When you build such an option, the one who activates the bomb is the rocket shooter, not me. The decision is his. He can’t say he thought I wouldn’t fire at the building. Especially since there’s the reasoning of handing it over to a rational agent—that is, he fired while counting on me being moral and not firing at buildings, and then if I did fire, the blame would be on me. But in the situation my son suggests, he activates the whole mechanism. And we haven’t even talked about the pressure on Hamas to stop firing, which would be much stronger in such a situation (because they’d gain no propaganda advantage, etc.).
From a hasbara point of view, maybe it really would help (and I have to note that all the international Twitter I’m seeing is like a bonfire of “solidarity” with the Palestinians. A few more drops of water here and there won’t affect the flames at all). But in my opinion it’s still like the “usual” discussion. Personally I think deterrent fire should be used even with human intervention, and if it’s forbidden to fire afterward then it’s also forbidden to create the mechanism. Unless a person is acting within his own domain independently of the harmful goal toward the attacker. And if the point of the mechanism is to help us in the court in The Hague, then I also find it hard to believe they’d be impressed by the rustling cellophane.
By the way, and sorry for being nosy, may I ask which son this is? I seem to remember that somewhere you wrote that your son “Yossi” does not uphold the categorical imperative when it comes to voting in elections, and from that I understood he’s a guy after my own heart :). And another son of yours (maybe the same one) said an idea with a consequentialist flavor about migo and the genius from Meitchit. So far, two hundred points to Gryffindor. But the idea of the son here suddenly moves away from consequentialist Mount Moriah, and my curiosity has been aroused, may it be rebuilt and established speedily in our days.
Wow, you really keep track. It’s the very same Jew. Indeed, Yossi.
My question was directed at you. You never wrote that it’s immoral because you never addressed the issue. I wanted to ask what your opinion is.
It didn’t look like a question but like a response to what I wrote.
If it is a question, I think it’s impossible to cut off their water completely, but it’s certainly possible to stop the electricity, and definitely the money.
The name of the site: who_is_next.com