naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28966 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.
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.
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 -
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).
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.
No. The land is cursed. Everyone living there would be well advised to go live somewhere else.
You'd think a cherished sacred homeland would have more to show for it than Israel does.
Or, I suppose it did, but desertification in the Bronze Age pooped on the bread basket.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link