site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  6mo ago (text post)   28867 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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict conceivable in this decade?

Warning: I know very little about the details or history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In business negotiations, there's a concept of Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA), which boils down to the range of possible negotiation outcomes that both parties would consider preferable to the alternative (i.e., preferable to a failure to arrive at any negotiated agreement).

Take the sale of a used car, for example. The buyer is willing to purchase the vehicle for a price up to $3000 (this figure is private). The seller is willing to sell for a price that's at least $2750 (also private). In this scenario, a Zone of Possible Agreement exists between $2750 and $3000, where both the buyer's and the seller’s minimal terms can be met.1

The important point is that any negotiated agreement will be somewhere in the ZOPA. The buyer's goal in the negotiation is to achieve an agreement on the low end of the ZOPA, and the seller's goal is to achieve an agreement on the high end of the ZOPA. It doesn't mean they'll arrive at an agreement, but at least both parties prefer to reach an agreement in the ZOPA than to not reach any agreement at all.

But not all scenarios admit a non-empty ZOPA. For example, if the buyer were willing to pay no more than $2000, then there is no ZOPA. Negotiation would be pointless.

Obviously, this framework tremendously over-simplifies the present conflict. Still, I don't know of a better one.

So, is there any conceivable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that both sides2 would prefer over continued conflict (hot or cold)?

My sense, unfortunately, is that the most painful concessions that can be extracted from either side would be insufficient for the other side.

And thus, war remains as "the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means."



[1] This example is the one provided at the link, modified slightly for clarity.

[2] One way in which this framing is an over-simplification is that it ignores that each side contains multiple relevant constituencies, each with its own preferences.

I would be interested to hear from someone more informed about the conflict whether there is any border other than "Free Palestine, from the river to the sea" that can be acceptable to a critical mass of Palestinians.

Progressive Hamas supporters speak as if Israel pulling back to 1967 borders and ending the Gaza blockade will bring eternal peace, but the average Palestinian on twitter or any video clip that ends up on Social media just seems happy as long of Jewish blood is spilled and regards every bit of Israel-Palestine as theirs.

If every Palestinian was relocated to Canada with the equivalent of 1 million USD in their pocket, might they be satisfied?

I'm sure a few of them would resent forced relocation, but maybe the majority of them would be cool with it.

There are 3 million people in the west bank and 2 million people in the gaza strip.

5 trillion Dollars to buy a solution to the middle east conflict is not impossible, but pretty steep.

Though the problem only compounds over time: Fertility rate is 3.2 and even 3.97 in Gaza. Look at this population pyramid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine

Someone should run the numbers and figure out how much is spent over a 40 year period maintaining the Palestinian territories. Then we divide that number by the number of Palestinians. That's a reasonable upper bound for paying them to leave. It might be well under a million, though.

The irony is that if in 1948 those who were forced to flee Palestine had gone somewhere with birthright citizenship, or if the supposedly pro-Palestinian Arab states had granted them citizenship, there would be essentially no such thing as "Palestinians" because almost no one would think if themselves in those terms. We certainly would not have idiocies like this: "When the [UN] Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5.9 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services." Nor would we have the even greater idiocy of 1.5 million people living in refugee camps.

If every Palestinian was relocated to Canada with the equivalent of 1 million USD in their pocket, might they be satisfied?

what about Canada being satisfied?

Canada loves refugees, hardy har har.

But in all seriousness, this is strictly a hypothetical I'm using to prove that peace is technically possible. Once we know a peaceful solution is technically possible, then we figure out the logistics.

Honestly given the way things currently are, Canada probably would be satisfied.

If you paid off the KKK to stop lynching people, I'm sure a million dollars per member would convince them to stop lynching people. That is not really a reason to say "the KKK may be satisfied with something other than lynching people".

"Be satisfied" doesn't mean "be satisfied by any condition, no matter how unlikely". This is just another example of over-literalness on the Internet.

The difference is that the KKK could theoretically convert new members at any time. Palestinians aren't merely an ideological group. They're a group bonded by, pardon the expression, blood and soil. Finding a way to remove them from their territory without pissing them or the rest of the world off would solve the problem permanently.

What is this place?

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.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats