naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
28884 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.
I've been thinking: what's the Palestinian path to victory? Ie. what's the course of action that would lead to an establishment of a from-the-river-to-the-sea Palestine? (Not focusing here on the desirability of that path etc.)
Any way one looks at it, the only way to get at this would be a war with Israel's neighbors joining in. Of course this hasn't happened since Yom Kippur War, and much of Israel's foreign and security policy has been successfully trying to make sure this doesn't happen. Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel and reasonably non-hostile governments (with their own reasons to hope that the situation stays stable), Lebanon and Syria are destabilized, Saudis are too dependent on US and too focused elsewhere to be a threat.
However, as far as I've understood, Egyptian and Jordanian populations continue to be strongly pro-Palestine, Jordan has a huge amount of Palestinian refugees, and Egypt continues to have many problems that make it a potential flash point. Would a sufficiently atrocious response by Israel have a possibility of leading to revolutions and strongly anti-Israel regimes taking power? Might Lebanon and Syria be stabilized, with Lebanon falling under Hezbollah rule? If all of Israel's neighbors started another big war, can Israel repeat the same as in 1947, 1968 and 1973? The traditional answer would be "probably", but the state of IDF currently looks like there's a lot of mythology and hot air underpinning that proposition.
I genuinely have no idea about these things, which is why I'm asking here.
I don’t think there’s any plausible scenario the leads to Palestine being free from river to sea. They’re an US ally, so presumably even if they did start getting pushed back immensely the US would intervene to stabilize the IDF.
Maybe if Israel commits such atrocities in Gaza that the US feels the need to completely distance themselves from Israel, it compels all the arab neighbours to intervene against Israel, and Israel is unable to fight them off on its own like it has multiple times in the past. But that’s a lot of ifs.
I would more than happily join in on the bet on Israel single-handedly demolishing every other hostile military in F-35 range. If not overnight, a week is good historical precedent.
Iran doesn't have the ability to nuke them, at least not yet, and that's about the only way they can be wiped out at this point. Any land or naval campaign will be left with a long hike through deserts after their logistics are sent to Abrahamic Heaven.
I wouldn't bet on Israel's F35's accomplishing all that much without US arms. They'd probably be able to hold out for a year or two and then completely run out of munitions, especially bombs. Israel is vastly outnumbered and outfinanced by its neighbors without US support.
Speaking of logistics, I'm sure Israel's initial strikes would be more devastating than their enemies', but their enemies are not surrounded, and have way more land/natural resources to use.
Of course, I don't think Israel will lose US support, and even if it did there are still NGOs and other people in power who can divert large amounts of resources their way no matter what atrocities they commit.
They have plenty of other jets, and a domestic arms industry that is world-class. The F-35s will be used to ensure that less stealthy jets are able to do as they wish.
Their priority would be obviating the need for a prolonged campaign, if enemy armies made it to their borders, something went wrong along the way.
Could they hold out indefinitely if the Arabs went Berserker Mode and threw bodies high enough to climb over fences? Probably not, but if gets that bad, that's where their nukes in quantum-superposition come into play.
Well, I think Israel knows better than to do something truly unforgiveable, so entertaining the hypothetical is a bit of a waste of time. That said, I think that in that situation the Arabs definitely would go berserker mode, and then there's no guarantee even nukes would be a deterrent.
The only things I could think of that would actually break America's alliance with Israel would be crazy things like unprovoked nuclear escalation or extremely broad use of chemical/biological weapons. I'm curious, do you have something less extreme in mind, or do you think that even if Israel does commit something that extreme they still won't face retaliation in kind?
The only things I could think of that would actually break America's alliance with Israel would be crazy things like unprovoked nuclear escalation or extremely broad use of chemical/biological weapons.
That said, I think that in that situation the Arabs definitely would go berserker mode, and then there's no guarantee even nukes would be a deterrent.
Less deterrent and more a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem, in reverse. Arab armies aren't so competent they can survive nuclear decapitation.
Arabian sand is shit anyway, too coarse for construction, so an upgrade to blast glass shouldn't be sniffed at.
I'm curious, do you have something less extreme in mind, or do you think that even if Israel does commit something that extreme they still won't face retaliation in kind?
I don't claim any particular confidence in such an extremal scenario. The world will be very different from what we know today if it comes to that.
I think that measures such as kicking every Palestinian out of Gaza would be sufficient for the US to backpedal, if not cut ties, and how much lower it goes from there is anyone's guess.
We seem to have pretty different perspectives here. If Israel used enough nukes to decapitate their current enemies' armies, I'd expect other Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to join the fight. The only way Israel wins, even temporarily, is via escalation, and escalation breeds escalation.
Before that happened though I'd expect the US, China, and Russia to step in and probably turn the whole battle into yet another proxy war, meaning no nukes allowed.
I think kicking Palestinians out of Gaza would maybe prompt some kind of response from the US, but definitely not enough to cut ties. The alliance between the US and Israel is bizzarely strong. TBH I don't even unprovoked nukes from Israel would be guaranteed to entirely cut ties between the two countries.
The Saudis can't even squash a starving insurgency in Yemen*, you have far too much faith in their competence if they think they can take on Israel. And yes, I think that if they get involved, the F-35s will pay them a visit.
TBH I don't even unprovoked nukes from Israel would be guaranteed to entirely cut ties between the two countries.
Depends on how strict you are about "entirely", but I think any actual support would cease.
*And they're not nearly as shy of war crimes as the Israelis are. Hence the starvation.
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 -
I've been thinking: what's the Palestinian path to victory? Ie. what's the course of action that would lead to an establishment of a from-the-river-to-the-sea Palestine? (Not focusing here on the desirability of that path etc.)
Any way one looks at it, the only way to get at this would be a war with Israel's neighbors joining in. Of course this hasn't happened since Yom Kippur War, and much of Israel's foreign and security policy has been successfully trying to make sure this doesn't happen. Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel and reasonably non-hostile governments (with their own reasons to hope that the situation stays stable), Lebanon and Syria are destabilized, Saudis are too dependent on US and too focused elsewhere to be a threat.
However, as far as I've understood, Egyptian and Jordanian populations continue to be strongly pro-Palestine, Jordan has a huge amount of Palestinian refugees, and Egypt continues to have many problems that make it a potential flash point. Would a sufficiently atrocious response by Israel have a possibility of leading to revolutions and strongly anti-Israel regimes taking power? Might Lebanon and Syria be stabilized, with Lebanon falling under Hezbollah rule? If all of Israel's neighbors started another big war, can Israel repeat the same as in 1947, 1968 and 1973? The traditional answer would be "probably", but the state of IDF currently looks like there's a lot of mythology and hot air underpinning that proposition.
I genuinely have no idea about these things, which is why I'm asking here.
I don’t think there’s any plausible scenario the leads to Palestine being free from river to sea. They’re an US ally, so presumably even if they did start getting pushed back immensely the US would intervene to stabilize the IDF.
Maybe if Israel commits such atrocities in Gaza that the US feels the need to completely distance themselves from Israel, it compels all the arab neighbours to intervene against Israel, and Israel is unable to fight them off on its own like it has multiple times in the past. But that’s a lot of ifs.
I would more than happily join in on the bet on Israel single-handedly demolishing every other hostile military in F-35 range. If not overnight, a week is good historical precedent.
Iran doesn't have the ability to nuke them, at least not yet, and that's about the only way they can be wiped out at this point. Any land or naval campaign will be left with a long hike through deserts after their logistics are sent to Abrahamic Heaven.
I wouldn't bet on Israel's F35's accomplishing all that much without US arms. They'd probably be able to hold out for a year or two and then completely run out of munitions, especially bombs. Israel is vastly outnumbered and outfinanced by its neighbors without US support.
Speaking of logistics, I'm sure Israel's initial strikes would be more devastating than their enemies', but their enemies are not surrounded, and have way more land/natural resources to use.
Of course, I don't think Israel will lose US support, and even if it did there are still NGOs and other people in power who can divert large amounts of resources their way no matter what atrocities they commit.
They have plenty of other jets, and a domestic arms industry that is world-class. The F-35s will be used to ensure that less stealthy jets are able to do as they wish.
Their priority would be obviating the need for a prolonged campaign, if enemy armies made it to their borders, something went wrong along the way.
Could they hold out indefinitely if the Arabs went Berserker Mode and threw bodies high enough to climb over fences? Probably not, but if gets that bad, that's where their nukes in quantum-superposition come into play.
Well, I think Israel knows better than to do something truly unforgiveable, so entertaining the hypothetical is a bit of a waste of time. That said, I think that in that situation the Arabs definitely would go berserker mode, and then there's no guarantee even nukes would be a deterrent.
The only things I could think of that would actually break America's alliance with Israel would be crazy things like unprovoked nuclear escalation or extremely broad use of chemical/biological weapons. I'm curious, do you have something less extreme in mind, or do you think that even if Israel does commit something that extreme they still won't face retaliation in kind?
Or murdering all 2 000 000+ people in Gaza Strip.
Which is not plausible at all.
More options
Context Copy link
Less deterrent and more a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem, in reverse. Arab armies aren't so competent they can survive nuclear decapitation.
Arabian sand is shit anyway, too coarse for construction, so an upgrade to blast glass shouldn't be sniffed at.
I don't claim any particular confidence in such an extremal scenario. The world will be very different from what we know today if it comes to that.
I think that measures such as kicking every Palestinian out of Gaza would be sufficient for the US to backpedal, if not cut ties, and how much lower it goes from there is anyone's guess.
We seem to have pretty different perspectives here. If Israel used enough nukes to decapitate their current enemies' armies, I'd expect other Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to join the fight. The only way Israel wins, even temporarily, is via escalation, and escalation breeds escalation.
Before that happened though I'd expect the US, China, and Russia to step in and probably turn the whole battle into yet another proxy war, meaning no nukes allowed.
I think kicking Palestinians out of Gaza would maybe prompt some kind of response from the US, but definitely not enough to cut ties. The alliance between the US and Israel is bizzarely strong. TBH I don't even unprovoked nukes from Israel would be guaranteed to entirely cut ties between the two countries.
The Saudis can't even squash a starving insurgency in Yemen*, you have far too much faith in their competence if they think they can take on Israel. And yes, I think that if they get involved, the F-35s will pay them a visit.
Depends on how strict you are about "entirely", but I think any actual support would cease.
*And they're not nearly as shy of war crimes as the Israelis are. Hence the starvation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't it the other way around, that it's too smooth due to aeolic erosion and thus doesn't bind well?
Ah. Memory fails me, and Google confirms you're correct.
Either way, what's one form of quartz over another? Dubai will sparkle from glass either way.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link