(I might delete this post later if it derails the thread, I’m not sure how useful or constructive it is—please let me know!)
I think this inadvertently highlights why an ‘EA’ (utilitarian) framing might downplay the badness of the conflict. I think the badness falls into five buckets (opinions follow; and not claiming that you do or don’t agree with these):
The direct number of deaths and ongoing suffering is high.
The systematic bombing and killing of civilians, coupled with the eradicationist rhetoric of the Israeli government, almost certainly constitutes a genocide. A genocide carries a quality of horror and depravity to it that, in my opinion, multiplies the harm of the deaths. Even a pure utilitarian may be able to see that a genocide causes fear and suffering well beyond the time, place, and people it affects (for example, Jewish people continue to suffer from the harms of the Holocaust today).
Such a genocide being paid for and propped up by Western governments greatly erodes global security and trust (last year alone, the U.S. paid for $17B in military aid to Israel; Israel’s military budget was $47B). It was already difficult, and will get more difficult, for smaller countries to trust that the West will honour their commitments to security, or intervene if attacked by the wrong country (we are already seeing this with Lebanon and Syria). But worse, they can’t trust that the West will not even stay out of it!
Similarly, the massive public support for non-intervention in Western countries contradicts the stances of their governments. Every time a democracy fails to produce a democratic outcome, it bends a little. I think it’s safe to say we have seen (U.S. 2024) and will continue to see (U.K. 2029) the electoral consequences of a pattern of these outcomes (but not to pin these results specifically on Gaza).
Consequentially, every time the West has behaved like this with another country, they have experienced significant blowback. By its nature, it’s hard to predict what the blowback will be this time, but it’s reasonable to assume that restraining Iran’s nuclear capabilities will now be permanently harder.
Many policy-minded EAs seem directly invested in (3, 4, 5). So I think the issue is tractability, but to be clear, the Western governments paying for this war are the ones with the power to end it. It is telling that non-U.S. Western governments have supported Gaza around the same time as developments in tariff negotiations; it seems pretty clear that the benefits of U.S. trade have been used as a cudgel against trading partners (especially when, in the U.K., France, and Australia, their left-wing leaders have historically supported Palestine up until forming government). I doubt that relationship can be changed by a well-placed EA policy organisation. Nor do I suspect that the U.S.’ relationship with Israel could similarly be changed, as any Democrat or Republican who openly supports Palestine instantly becomes a pariah and loses much of their standing with the party even if all of their other policies are indistinguishable from FDR (see: Zohran, Ilhan Omar).
I largely agree with you but I want to point to a small issue with terminology: what does “supporting Palestine” mean here?
I think it’s both vague (do you mean a current entity? A future state? Something else? And what does supporting it mean?) and unnecessary (in my view strongly objecting to what Israel’s doing in Gaza and in the West Bank is consistent with most political views other than those who for some reason put extremely low value on the lives of Palestinians compared to Israelis).
Mmm, good point. In the paragraph I was implicitly trying to talk about supporting material changes to the Gaza conflict specifically and the military occupation and forced settlements of Gaza and the West Bank broadly (i.e. not sending offensive military aid to Israel; as opposed to recognition of a Palestinian state represented by the PLO at the U.N.). In general my point was to highlight the tension between:
In the U.S., U.K., Australia, (and likely other countries I’m less familiar with), the two largest parties both support continuation of direct military support for Israel’s offensive capabilities (including via providing maintenance and support through the F-35 programme). Opposing this generally gets you directly removed from the party, or ostracised in a way that hurts people’s political careers (although, I’ll note this situation is changing rapidly as starvation kicks in).
There is plurality (U.S., 2024), and otherwise broad public support for directly ending or reducing military aid to Israel (U.K.) in Western countries.
(I might delete this post later if it derails the thread, I’m not sure how useful or constructive it is—please let me know!)
I think this inadvertently highlights why an ‘EA’ (utilitarian) framing might downplay the badness of the conflict. I think the badness falls into five buckets (opinions follow; and not claiming that you do or don’t agree with these):
The direct number of deaths and ongoing suffering is high.
The systematic bombing and killing of civilians, coupled with the eradicationist rhetoric of the Israeli government, almost certainly constitutes a genocide. A genocide carries a quality of horror and depravity to it that, in my opinion, multiplies the harm of the deaths. Even a pure utilitarian may be able to see that a genocide causes fear and suffering well beyond the time, place, and people it affects (for example, Jewish people continue to suffer from the harms of the Holocaust today).
Such a genocide being paid for and propped up by Western governments greatly erodes global security and trust (last year alone, the U.S. paid for $17B in military aid to Israel; Israel’s military budget was $47B). It was already difficult, and will get more difficult, for smaller countries to trust that the West will honour their commitments to security, or intervene if attacked by the wrong country (we are already seeing this with Lebanon and Syria). But worse, they can’t trust that the West will not even stay out of it!
Similarly, the massive public support for non-intervention in Western countries contradicts the stances of their governments. Every time a democracy fails to produce a democratic outcome, it bends a little. I think it’s safe to say we have seen (U.S. 2024) and will continue to see (U.K. 2029) the electoral consequences of a pattern of these outcomes (but not to pin these results specifically on Gaza).
Consequentially, every time the West has behaved like this with another country, they have experienced significant blowback. By its nature, it’s hard to predict what the blowback will be this time, but it’s reasonable to assume that restraining Iran’s nuclear capabilities will now be permanently harder.
Many policy-minded EAs seem directly invested in (3, 4, 5). So I think the issue is tractability, but to be clear, the Western governments paying for this war are the ones with the power to end it. It is telling that non-U.S. Western governments have supported Gaza around the same time as developments in tariff negotiations; it seems pretty clear that the benefits of U.S. trade have been used as a cudgel against trading partners (especially when, in the U.K., France, and Australia, their left-wing leaders have historically supported Palestine up until forming government). I doubt that relationship can be changed by a well-placed EA policy organisation. Nor do I suspect that the U.S.’ relationship with Israel could similarly be changed, as any Democrat or Republican who openly supports Palestine instantly becomes a pariah and loses much of their standing with the party even if all of their other policies are indistinguishable from FDR (see: Zohran, Ilhan Omar).
Just addressing part of your comment, I think additional non-death badness seems similar for Sudan and Ukraine.
I largely agree with you but I want to point to a small issue with terminology: what does “supporting Palestine” mean here?
I think it’s both vague (do you mean a current entity? A future state? Something else? And what does supporting it mean?) and unnecessary (in my view strongly objecting to what Israel’s doing in Gaza and in the West Bank is consistent with most political views other than those who for some reason put extremely low value on the lives of Palestinians compared to Israelis).
Mmm, good point. In the paragraph I was implicitly trying to talk about supporting material changes to the Gaza conflict specifically and the military occupation and forced settlements of Gaza and the West Bank broadly (i.e. not sending offensive military aid to Israel; as opposed to recognition of a Palestinian state represented by the PLO at the U.N.). In general my point was to highlight the tension between:
In the U.S., U.K., Australia, (and likely other countries I’m less familiar with), the two largest parties both support continuation of direct military support for Israel’s offensive capabilities (including via providing maintenance and support through the F-35 programme). Opposing this generally gets you directly removed from the party, or ostracised in a way that hurts people’s political careers (although, I’ll note this situation is changing rapidly as starvation kicks in).
There is plurality (U.S., 2024), and otherwise broad public support for directly ending or reducing military aid to Israel (U.K.) in Western countries.