naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28941 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.
And what of all the similar conflicts which were resolved without engaging in full-throated war? Northern Ireland is an obvious example. More importantly, this claim:
you cannot expect certain groups to coexist in the same space peacefully for long
an atrocity in the present may prevent a greater atrocity in the future.
That is a great argument for assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, but not so great for killing all 2 million residents of the Gaza Strip, "everyone from squalling infants to doddering grandfathers," in order to avoid 600 deaths of Israelis, or even 60,000. Because the latter is not a "greater atrocity" than the former.
A false dichotomy, because I'm pretty sure OP isn't proposing the killing of literally every Palestinian in Gaza, but only the option of killing Hamas, politically involved activists, and optionally, some of their families. I'd be immensely surprised if even that latter broader case encompassed anywhere near a million, maybe twenty or thirty thousand at most before people learned they needed to shut up.
The relevant calculus of death is (Israeli and Palestinian military and civilians who would die if the conflict was allowed to keep boiling) versus (The same class if a brutal campaign ended all appetite for further organized activity).
It seems eminently obvious to me that the former is comparable to the latter, if only because a ton of Palestinians already die because of Hamas provoking Israel.
Then, of course, a more rigorous approach considers second order effects. Of which there are multitudes.
I'm pretty sure OP isn't proposing the killing of literally every Palestinian in Gaza,
I'm pretty sure OP is proposing precisely that, since OP said, "But if Gaza had been erased from the world years ago, everyone from squalling infants to doddering grandfathers, you would not have this problem."
the Sri Lankan government essentially said "fuck this", and decided to wage concentrated, merciless, full-throated war against the Tamils. They brought out the kinds of heavy weapons that you usually reserve for wars against foreign states, and they used them without hesitation, and with very little regard for civilian-combatant distinctions. They killed and killed and killed until the LTTE was begging for a ceasefire, which they ignored,
That is on top of the quote I already cited, re "killing everyone from squalling infants to doddering grandfathers,"
And they also say this: "I understand that it's difficult to convince Jews that genocide is the answer."
The bottom line is that if there is evidence that OP in fact would not have endorsed the killing of every Sri Lankan Tamil, had that been necessary, I would like to see it. OP is clearly endorsing that very idea.
I took it to mean that it would be a sufficient solution, at the time, but without any implication that it was necessary today, where far less than the utter annihilation of the Palestinian people will more than suffice.
I'll let him clarify his stance, if he wishes, but just because someone said Genocide X years ago would solve Y problem today, that doesn't mean they're suggesting the very same for Y today.
I don't mind it, honestly. But if some level of ethnic cleansing that falls short of total genocide would be an effective solution, then sure, go for that instead. It's worked out plenty of times in the past. What I object to is this idea that everything on that spectrum of atrocities, from population transfers to mass graves, should be declared off-limits.
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 -
And what of all the similar conflicts which were resolved without engaging in full-throated war? Northern Ireland is an obvious example. More importantly, this claim:
Is empirically false, because violence between such groups is the exception, not the rule
That is a great argument for assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, but not so great for killing all 2 million residents of the Gaza Strip, "everyone from squalling infants to doddering grandfathers," in order to avoid 600 deaths of Israelis, or even 60,000. Because the latter is not a "greater atrocity" than the former.
A false dichotomy, because I'm pretty sure OP isn't proposing the killing of literally every Palestinian in Gaza, but only the option of killing Hamas, politically involved activists, and optionally, some of their families. I'd be immensely surprised if even that latter broader case encompassed anywhere near a million, maybe twenty or thirty thousand at most before people learned they needed to shut up.
The relevant calculus of death is (Israeli and Palestinian military and civilians who would die if the conflict was allowed to keep boiling) versus (The same class if a brutal campaign ended all appetite for further organized activity).
It seems eminently obvious to me that the former is comparable to the latter, if only because a ton of Palestinians already die because of Hamas provoking Israel.
Then, of course, a more rigorous approach considers second order effects. Of which there are multitudes.
I'm pretty sure OP is proposing precisely that, since OP said, "But if Gaza had been erased from the world years ago, everyone from squalling infants to doddering grandfathers, you would not have this problem."
They made the comparison to the Tamil situation, in which the vast vast majority of Sri Lankan Tamils were obviously not killed.
What they said was this:
That is on top of the quote I already cited, re "killing everyone from squalling infants to doddering grandfathers,"
And they also say this: "I understand that it's difficult to convince Jews that genocide is the answer."
The bottom line is that if there is evidence that OP in fact would not have endorsed the killing of every Sri Lankan Tamil, had that been necessary, I would like to see it. OP is clearly endorsing that very idea.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I took it to mean that it would be a sufficient solution, at the time, but without any implication that it was necessary today, where far less than the utter annihilation of the Palestinian people will more than suffice.
I'll let him clarify his stance, if he wishes, but just because someone said Genocide X years ago would solve Y problem today, that doesn't mean they're suggesting the very same for Y today.
He is clearly advocating for it in principle. Look at his very first sentence.
@CriticalDuty care to comment to resolve this?
I don't mind it, honestly. But if some level of ethnic cleansing that falls short of total genocide would be an effective solution, then sure, go for that instead. It's worked out plenty of times in the past. What I object to is this idea that everything on that spectrum of atrocities, from population transfers to mass graves, should be declared off-limits.
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