naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29868 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
What's in it for Hamas? Israel's response is totally predictable. It's about to be a really rough time to be a Gazan. Hamas leadership must have thought through what happens the week after their attack .... right? I'm genuinely curious what their calculus is/was.
Not knowing much about the topic, the two things I'd look for are 1. generic accelerationist tendencies (end the status quo and force a resolution, whatever it may be) and 2. Ways in which the specific (still living) people behind planning the attack benefit from it personally ('career' advancement/etc) even if it doesn't help the cause overall long-term.
Note that "Hamas" did not decide to do anything; rather, certain leaders of Hamas did. Those who made the decision to launch this attack are almost certainly acting in their own interests. The decision was probably driven in part by internal politics, either between Hamas and its political rivals, or among factions within Hamas. That is hardly an unusual phenomenon (see the Falklands War). Note than "driven by internal politics" does not preclude the possibility that Iran played an important role, given that Hamas relies on Iran for some of its funding, which like all governing organizations Hamas uses to purchase legitimacy (whether in the form of public services or in the form of striking Israel).
That's a good thing to remember in the general case, but it's also relevant to look at the necessary number of people involved in this sort of maneuvers, either directly in terms of men on the scene, and indirectly in terms of immediate support. Even with fairly generous assumptions regarding compartmentalization, it's extremely likely that both the majority of Hamas leadership and literally tens of thousands of individual members were involved.
That both changes how leaders make decisions (cfe more formal example), but it also blends the lines between decisions made by individuals and by organizations.
There are actually reports coming out that only a small part of the military leadership planned this attack and was aware of it and not even the political leaders of Hamas were aware. And other militant groups were only informed moments before the action and joined in an impromptu manner. Obviously impossible to know for sure but this would make much sense since otherwise it would be impossible to keep this secret.
Yes, but I think you are conflating two different questions: 1) why entities employ political violence; and 2) why individuals go along / participate in political violence / join politically violent organizations. Compare chapters 3 and six here
They probably believe that if they cause enough pain they really can eventually force Israel to give up territory for peace. They've seen, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Algeria, that great powers can be worn down and lose the will for continued occupation. And they're banking on Israel not doing all the things people are asking them to do on Twitter: "Turn Gaza into a parking lot." People here might argue that it would be "rational" for the Israelis to just go ahead and do a genocide, but they aren't going to do that.
I think Hamas is mistaken in that the situation in Palestine is obviously different from those other examples (notably, Israel knows that there would never be peace because Hamas's end goal is literally the destruction of Israel and they'll never settle for anything less). But Palestine does have a lot of global sympathy so Israel still cannot "make the rubble bounce" even if they wanted to.
And while @WhiningCoil's take is just the usual low effort sneering, he's not completely wrong that actual religious beliefs play a part: most Muslims aren't in it for the "72 virgins" but they genuinely do believe that God is on their side and thus they will inevitably prevail.
notably, Israel knows that there would never be peace because Hamas's end goal is literally the destruction of Israel and they'll never settle for anything less
That's not even the most notable difference. The Afghans weren't attempting to remove America from Long Island, they were attempting to remove America from Afghanistan. The Algerians weren't trying to take Provence, they were trying to take Algeria.
But how much? Will they agree to 1967 borders? To the 1947 UN partition plan? Or only to pushing the last Jew into the Med?
Answers will probably vary depending on which Palestinian you ask, but as I said below, I've become blackpilled enough to believe that most Palestinians today, deep down, want the destruction of Israel and nothing less. Will anything ever persuade a critical mass to accept some sort of lasting, stable plan for coexistence? Not in a timespan of less than several generations.
No, one's person's sneering is sneering. You don't actually know much about Islam except what you learn from mainlining outrage online. Citing spicy quotes from holy books is Twitter-level, which is why you don't pile on in agreement when our resident Joo-posters are throwing around the one about goys being servants of Jews.
Then I don't understand your accusation of sneering, except to grant unearned charity to the obviously guilty party here. You acted like my bringing up that call to genocide was a complete non-sequitur. Like it's unfair or "sneering" to point out someone's publicly stated beliefs, openly expressed, enshrined in religion, government, media, and man on the street interviews.
the hamas leadership gives zero shits about the palestinians there and they'll never have recruitment issues. the optics of giving israel a broken nose and perhaps delaying normalization with the saudis are worth a few thousand lives.
Supposedly the Saudis and the Israelis were on the path to normalized relations. Saudi Arabia's remarks could be construed as blaming Israel for the situation, which would derails those normalization talks. Hamas gets a win if it can keep Israeli from having one less enemy.
Hamas leadership must have thought through what happens the week after their attack .... right?
72 virgins in heaven, same as always. I always find it illustrative to go back to this passage from their holy book.
The Hour will not begin until you fight the Jews, until a Jew will hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say: ‘O Muslim, O slave of Allah, here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.
That is a Hadith. Not a passage from their holy book. If we will go down to such a base level of argumentation at least let's get the facts right. Ironically, one side of this conflict actually does have a holy book where their God instructs them to genocide the inhabitants of the land and settle it themselves which they do according to the said book.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What's in it for Hamas? Israel's response is totally predictable. It's about to be a really rough time to be a Gazan. Hamas leadership must have thought through what happens the week after their attack .... right? I'm genuinely curious what their calculus is/was.
Suck up sympathy and NGO money. Same as always.
More options
Context Copy link
Not knowing much about the topic, the two things I'd look for are 1. generic accelerationist tendencies (end the status quo and force a resolution, whatever it may be) and 2. Ways in which the specific (still living) people behind planning the attack benefit from it personally ('career' advancement/etc) even if it doesn't help the cause overall long-term.
More options
Context Copy link
Note that "Hamas" did not decide to do anything; rather, certain leaders of Hamas did. Those who made the decision to launch this attack are almost certainly acting in their own interests. The decision was probably driven in part by internal politics, either between Hamas and its political rivals, or among factions within Hamas. That is hardly an unusual phenomenon (see the Falklands War). Note than "driven by internal politics" does not preclude the possibility that Iran played an important role, given that Hamas relies on Iran for some of its funding, which like all governing organizations Hamas uses to purchase legitimacy (whether in the form of public services or in the form of striking Israel).
That's a good thing to remember in the general case, but it's also relevant to look at the necessary number of people involved in this sort of maneuvers, either directly in terms of men on the scene, and indirectly in terms of immediate support. Even with fairly generous assumptions regarding compartmentalization, it's extremely likely that both the majority of Hamas leadership and literally tens of thousands of individual members were involved.
That both changes how leaders make decisions (cfe more formal example), but it also blends the lines between decisions made by individuals and by organizations.
There are actually reports coming out that only a small part of the military leadership planned this attack and was aware of it and not even the political leaders of Hamas were aware. And other militant groups were only informed moments before the action and joined in an impromptu manner. Obviously impossible to know for sure but this would make much sense since otherwise it would be impossible to keep this secret.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but I think you are conflating two different questions: 1) why entities employ political violence; and 2) why individuals go along / participate in political violence / join politically violent organizations. Compare chapters 3 and six here
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They probably believe that if they cause enough pain they really can eventually force Israel to give up territory for peace. They've seen, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Algeria, that great powers can be worn down and lose the will for continued occupation. And they're banking on Israel not doing all the things people are asking them to do on Twitter: "Turn Gaza into a parking lot." People here might argue that it would be "rational" for the Israelis to just go ahead and do a genocide, but they aren't going to do that.
I think Hamas is mistaken in that the situation in Palestine is obviously different from those other examples (notably, Israel knows that there would never be peace because Hamas's end goal is literally the destruction of Israel and they'll never settle for anything less). But Palestine does have a lot of global sympathy so Israel still cannot "make the rubble bounce" even if they wanted to.
And while @WhiningCoil's take is just the usual low effort sneering, he's not completely wrong that actual religious beliefs play a part: most Muslims aren't in it for the "72 virgins" but they genuinely do believe that God is on their side and thus they will inevitably prevail.
That's not even the most notable difference. The Afghans weren't attempting to remove America from Long Island, they were attempting to remove America from Afghanistan. The Algerians weren't trying to take Provence, they were trying to take Algeria.
More options
Context Copy link
But how much? Will they agree to 1967 borders? To the 1947 UN partition plan? Or only to pushing the last Jew into the Med?
Answers will probably vary depending on which Palestinian you ask, but as I said below, I've become blackpilled enough to believe that most Palestinians today, deep down, want the destruction of Israel and nothing less. Will anything ever persuade a critical mass to accept some sort of lasting, stable plan for coexistence? Not in a timespan of less than several generations.
Right, and if Palestinians will have had all their aggression bred out of them, why give them any extra land? They will be satisfied with their lot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One person's sneering is another persons short, concise, cited answer.
No, one's person's sneering is sneering. You don't actually know much about Islam except what you learn from mainlining outrage online. Citing spicy quotes from holy books is Twitter-level, which is why you don't pile on in agreement when our resident Joo-posters are throwing around the one about goys being servants of Jews.
That passage from the Koran is literally cited in the Hamas Charter. It's article 7.
Yes, I'm aware. We aren't disagreeing about whether or not Hamas hates Jews and wants to wipe out Israel.
Then I don't understand your accusation of sneering, except to grant unearned charity to the obviously guilty party here. You acted like my bringing up that call to genocide was a complete non-sequitur. Like it's unfair or "sneering" to point out someone's publicly stated beliefs, openly expressed, enshrined in religion, government, media, and man on the street interviews.
I was referring to "they do it for the 72 virgins."
I can believe they act with motives that rise above the level of memes without granting "charity" to them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
the hamas leadership gives zero shits about the palestinians there and they'll never have recruitment issues. the optics of giving israel a broken nose and perhaps delaying normalization with the saudis are worth a few thousand lives.
More options
Context Copy link
Epistemic status: Pure speculation.
Supposedly the Saudis and the Israelis were on the path to normalized relations. Saudi Arabia's remarks could be construed as blaming Israel for the situation, which would derails those normalization talks. Hamas gets a win if it can keep Israeli from having one less enemy.
More options
Context Copy link
72 virgins in heaven, same as always. I always find it illustrative to go back to this passage from their holy book.
It's pure, undiluted derangement.
That is a Hadith. Not a passage from their holy book. If we will go down to such a base level of argumentation at least let's get the facts right. Ironically, one side of this conflict actually does have a holy book where their God instructs them to genocide the inhabitants of the land and settle it themselves which they do according to the said book.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link