naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
28883 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.
Its been quite an interesting couple years. The Israel-Palestine conflict is by far the most complicated Geo-Political conflict of modern times, and there's really no good answer to how this will end. Even the best outcomes have incredible downsides. While there's much to say about the specifics of the conflict, I wanted to focus on a couple of general observations around the discourse about both this war and the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Does anyone else notice that the majority of online discourse about these foreign wars are often made as if they are being played out in some RTS video game? I see many takes that suggest that due to Israels military superiority, Hamas complete and utter destruction is simply inevitable, and will come swiftly once Israel deploys their infantry into Gaza. Does this not completely stand in the way of all prior evidence and attempts by far greater military powers to dismantle extremist terrorism in their territories? America controlled Afghanistan for twenty years and was still unable to dismantle the Taliban, and once they left they quickly took power in the region again. That's not even considering the actual logistical problems of waging an all out offensive within a dense, urban population of millions of people. I feel that war has become such an impossibility in the West that we have really lost the script on what it really entails.
On the rhetorical side of the debate, I find that Leftists are generally split between which side of the conflict they are supporting. Many of the hardline leftists are explicitly pro-Palestine, while more moderate leftists are explicitly pro Israel. It's not fallacious to say that if any minority group in America faced the same legal and administrative discrimination's that Palestinians face in Israel, they would call it a crime against humanity. Palestinians have quite strict guidelines on where they live, where they can work, are not granted Citizenship by birthright, and don't even have freedom of movement between Gaza and the West bank. The irony of Leftists supporting Israel while simultaneously blaming America for having systemic,institutional prejudices is not lost on me.
Always has been. Most people are not military specialists, but it’s a specialist’s world. Combine that with a general lack of nuance and you should expect to see very confident predictions based on vibes. For an interesting comparison, look up old World War headlines.
On Wednesday, July 14, 1914, the Washington Post declared that “Whether the war will be confined to the two countries can not be said, but the feeling on this point in high official circles is optimistic.”
The irony of decrying armchair analysis while, in the same breath, asserting that you’ve got the nuanced view—well, suffice to say it’s not lost on me.
It might not be fallacious, but it is reductive. No group in America has a habit of firing rockets at random buildings. Such is the privilege of our safe, Western existence.
It might not be fallacious, but it is reductive. No group in America has a habit of firing rockets at random buildings. Such is the privilege of our safe, Western existence.
In the spirit of levity to counterbalance the grimm topics...
That must be a lot of consent forms in each neighborhood every July. How do you handle it when they don't agree to your rockets coming down on their property?
The only thing complicated about Israel is the Jews are involved. And they matter. If it was two ethnics groups fighting in Africa they would have just ended on side and the issue ends. Syria was just as complicated. But nobody cares that much and Assad was allowed to do what was necessary to put down rebellion without the same concern about the majority impoverished Muslims.
Sometimes I feel like we don’t even frame these wars correctly. Everything boils down to Iran versus Arabs and not as much Jews versus Muslims when figuring out why America is backing one side versus the other. Because the US backing Assad the Christian rule (who was a little neoliberal) always seemed like a more natural ally for the US.
If oil deposits had been arranged differently and Iran had more oil than the Arabs then America a long time ago would have found a way to be friends with Iran. Iran would be friendly with Israel. And the Arabs would be the great evil.
Isn’t the Syrian conflict plenty high-profile? What with all the air strikes, sanctions, arms sales, chemical weapons investigations, and actual boots on the ground.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that we gave Assad a free hand. In the Arab Spring era, he stomped on a bunch of pro-democracy protests. That’s practically bait for getting the US involved.
Yes it was incredibly high-profile (especially for such a sluggish long running conflict). The OP seems to have made this up because it fits the arguments he wants to make.
Assad isn't Christian, the Alawites are a Shia Muslim religious group with some limited pre-Islamic elements. And America's support for Israel predates the current schism with Iran, which happened as a result of the Islamic Revolution that itself wasn't about Israel (it happened mainly because Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah into being less brutal with domestic Islamists, who could easily have been crushed but were instead in many cases released from prison, allowed to join the burgeoning student movement, start papers and opposition groups etc from early 1977).
Ok you are right on them being Shia. But I still think my point holds that we would be allies with them if Iran had more oil. Our backing of the Saudis seems to be the real thing that continues to keep Iran/America apart.
They also had some legitimate gripes that Iran barely benefitted from their oil and what they did get went to the elites. It improved before the revolution but their was a time when BP was paying an absurd 2% royalty.
It is right, and there is a reason Obama tried so hard to reorient US Middle Eastern policy towards a reconciliation with Iran. If US foreign policy was devised by an insular diplomatic corps who only had US interests in mind, this would have happened decades ago. Alas, there are certain groups who are very good at wielding the US foreign policy apparatus for the benefit of their ethnic group.
And yet, strangely, the vast majority of the voters who are members of the group in question voted for Obama. And against Trump. It's quite the conundrum.
Not really. There are very few American Jews and they aren't an important voting block. Majority of them are Americans first and foremost and become more assimilated every passing generation. The power of the Zionist lobby has nothing to do with their voting power, but their power to influence elite discourse and institutions.
That is not the point. The point is that if treating Iran as an enemy is truly about serving the interests of Jewish people, one would expect that Jewish voters would reward candidates who treat Iran as an enemy, and punish candidates who seek reconciliation with Iran. Yet, the opposite happened.
If you now want to distinguish between Zionists and Jewush people, fine. That is obviously true. But you made a claim about an ethnic group, and Zionists are not an ethnic group.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is by far the most complicated Geo-Political conflict of modern times, and there's really no good answer to how this will end.
The conflict isn't actually complicated at all. Both sides value something they don't consider fungible, and have for half a century been unwilling to share. Precise details about who did what and to whom all fade into muddy morass of irreconcilable ideals.
There are few good ideas for how anything will end, that's a perk of living just before the Singularity, unless we hit the brakes harder and even less plausibly than the participants of this inter-Abrahamic squabble. Whether everything will end poorly or in utopia is unknown to me, but I'm confident enough in excluding the middle, which is business as usual forecasting past maybe 5 years.
Does anyone else notice that the majority of online discourse about these foreign wars are often made as if they are being played out in some RTS video game? I see many takes that suggest that due to Israels military superiority, Hamas complete and utter destruction is simply inevitable, and will come swiftly once Israel deploys their infantry into Gaza
If you think the hot takes from gamers are bad, then wait till you see the opinions of the man or woman on the street who calls everything remotely resembling an AK an AK-47, or refers to any scary gun as an assault weapon.
Playing lots of RTS games might not make you competent at geopolitics and military campaigning, but it can't make you worse than a baseline. I've seen enough actual combat footage and documentaries, while also experiencing digitally the sheer pain and suffering that is either trying to survive as an insurgent when your enemies have Apaches and drones, or being a soldier in a conventional military trying to take a urban population center with civilians with an ROE that isn't glassing the place. Even if you do blow everything up, as the Russians have tried their best do in Ukraine, it really doesn't deter a determined defender dug in harder than an Alabama tick. We've known that since Stalingrad at the latest.
Both sides will suffer, but Hamas is going to cry first.
Why?
Does this not completely stand in the way of all prior evidence and attempts by far greater military powers to dismantle extremist terrorism in their territories? America controlled Afghanistan for twenty years and was still unable to dismantle the Taliban, and once they left they quickly took power in the region again
China seems to be doing quite well in pacifying Xinjiang, because they lack the same hangups that powers like the US or the rest of NATO have when it comes to stomping the boot on your enemy's face till they lack the teeth to bite or the brains to contemplate armed resistance. The Russians pacified Chechnya too, even if it cost them dearly.
A lump sum of violence delivered effectively and as brutally as necessary seems to clearly outweigh the total amount paid in blood when you seek small installments and easy copays.
And Hamas has just given Israel a casus belli that lets them take off the kid gloves, for a good while, and even if the usual suspects cry, they're impotent to stop them, likely within a timeframe where Israel can knock the fight out of them.
We'll see soon enough, this conflict can't literally drag on forever, not even till Heath Death.
And I want to echo this. Israel is not subject to international opinion in its treatment of Gaza right now. The consequences of turning it into a rubble heap, putting it under a starvation siege for a year, and then deporting the survivors(unless they’re military aged males, those go to a prison camp forever) will be a UN resolution, some strongly worded notes, and that’s about it.
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 -
Its been quite an interesting couple years. The Israel-Palestine conflict is by far the most complicated Geo-Political conflict of modern times, and there's really no good answer to how this will end. Even the best outcomes have incredible downsides. While there's much to say about the specifics of the conflict, I wanted to focus on a couple of general observations around the discourse about both this war and the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Does anyone else notice that the majority of online discourse about these foreign wars are often made as if they are being played out in some RTS video game? I see many takes that suggest that due to Israels military superiority, Hamas complete and utter destruction is simply inevitable, and will come swiftly once Israel deploys their infantry into Gaza. Does this not completely stand in the way of all prior evidence and attempts by far greater military powers to dismantle extremist terrorism in their territories? America controlled Afghanistan for twenty years and was still unable to dismantle the Taliban, and once they left they quickly took power in the region again. That's not even considering the actual logistical problems of waging an all out offensive within a dense, urban population of millions of people. I feel that war has become such an impossibility in the West that we have really lost the script on what it really entails.
On the rhetorical side of the debate, I find that Leftists are generally split between which side of the conflict they are supporting. Many of the hardline leftists are explicitly pro-Palestine, while more moderate leftists are explicitly pro Israel. It's not fallacious to say that if any minority group in America faced the same legal and administrative discrimination's that Palestinians face in Israel, they would call it a crime against humanity. Palestinians have quite strict guidelines on where they live, where they can work, are not granted Citizenship by birthright, and don't even have freedom of movement between Gaza and the West bank. The irony of Leftists supporting Israel while simultaneously blaming America for having systemic,institutional prejudices is not lost on me.
The irony of decrying armchair analysis while, in the same breath, asserting that you’ve got the nuanced view—well, suffice to say it’s not lost on me.
In the spirit of levity to counterbalance the grimm topics...
Don't you all do that every fourth of July?
Consent matters!
That must be a lot of consent forms in each neighborhood every July. How do you handle it when they don't agree to your rockets coming down on their property?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The only thing complicated about Israel is the Jews are involved. And they matter. If it was two ethnics groups fighting in Africa they would have just ended on side and the issue ends. Syria was just as complicated. But nobody cares that much and Assad was allowed to do what was necessary to put down rebellion without the same concern about the majority impoverished Muslims.
Sometimes I feel like we don’t even frame these wars correctly. Everything boils down to Iran versus Arabs and not as much Jews versus Muslims when figuring out why America is backing one side versus the other. Because the US backing Assad the Christian rule (who was a little neoliberal) always seemed like a more natural ally for the US.
If oil deposits had been arranged differently and Iran had more oil than the Arabs then America a long time ago would have found a way to be friends with Iran. Iran would be friendly with Israel. And the Arabs would be the great evil.
Isn’t the Syrian conflict plenty high-profile? What with all the air strikes, sanctions, arms sales, chemical weapons investigations, and actual boots on the ground.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that we gave Assad a free hand. In the Arab Spring era, he stomped on a bunch of pro-democracy protests. That’s practically bait for getting the US involved.
Yes it was incredibly high-profile (especially for such a sluggish long running conflict). The OP seems to have made this up because it fits the arguments he wants to make.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Assad isn't Christian, the Alawites are a Shia Muslim religious group with some limited pre-Islamic elements. And America's support for Israel predates the current schism with Iran, which happened as a result of the Islamic Revolution that itself wasn't about Israel (it happened mainly because Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah into being less brutal with domestic Islamists, who could easily have been crushed but were instead in many cases released from prison, allowed to join the burgeoning student movement, start papers and opposition groups etc from early 1977).
Ok you are right on them being Shia. But I still think my point holds that we would be allies with them if Iran had more oil. Our backing of the Saudis seems to be the real thing that continues to keep Iran/America apart.
They also had some legitimate gripes that Iran barely benefitted from their oil and what they did get went to the elites. It improved before the revolution but their was a time when BP was paying an absurd 2% royalty.
This says that Iran has the world's third largest proven oil reserves. Is it wrong?
It is right, and there is a reason Obama tried so hard to reorient US Middle Eastern policy towards a reconciliation with Iran. If US foreign policy was devised by an insular diplomatic corps who only had US interests in mind, this would have happened decades ago. Alas, there are certain groups who are very good at wielding the US foreign policy apparatus for the benefit of their ethnic group.
And yet, strangely, the vast majority of the voters who are members of the group in question voted for Obama. And against Trump. It's quite the conundrum.
Not really. There are very few American Jews and they aren't an important voting block. Majority of them are Americans first and foremost and become more assimilated every passing generation. The power of the Zionist lobby has nothing to do with their voting power, but their power to influence elite discourse and institutions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It says exactly what I said it said. The Arabs have more oil.
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 conflict isn't actually complicated at all. Both sides value something they don't consider fungible, and have for half a century been unwilling to share. Precise details about who did what and to whom all fade into muddy morass of irreconcilable ideals.
There are few good ideas for how anything will end, that's a perk of living just before the Singularity, unless we hit the brakes harder and even less plausibly than the participants of this inter-Abrahamic squabble. Whether everything will end poorly or in utopia is unknown to me, but I'm confident enough in excluding the middle, which is business as usual forecasting past maybe 5 years.
If you think the hot takes from gamers are bad, then wait till you see the opinions of the man or woman on the street who calls everything remotely resembling an AK an AK-47, or refers to any scary gun as an assault weapon.
Playing lots of RTS games might not make you competent at geopolitics and military campaigning, but it can't make you worse than a baseline. I've seen enough actual combat footage and documentaries, while also experiencing digitally the sheer pain and suffering that is either trying to survive as an insurgent when your enemies have Apaches and drones, or being a soldier in a conventional military trying to take a urban population center with civilians with an ROE that isn't glassing the place. Even if you do blow everything up, as the Russians have tried their best do in Ukraine, it really doesn't deter a determined defender dug in harder than an Alabama tick. We've known that since Stalingrad at the latest.
Both sides will suffer, but Hamas is going to cry first.
Why?
China seems to be doing quite well in pacifying Xinjiang, because they lack the same hangups that powers like the US or the rest of NATO have when it comes to stomping the boot on your enemy's face till they lack the teeth to bite or the brains to contemplate armed resistance. The Russians pacified Chechnya too, even if it cost them dearly.
A lump sum of violence delivered effectively and as brutally as necessary seems to clearly outweigh the total amount paid in blood when you seek small installments and easy copays.
And Hamas has just given Israel a casus belli that lets them take off the kid gloves, for a good while, and even if the usual suspects cry, they're impotent to stop them, likely within a timeframe where Israel can knock the fight out of them.
We'll see soon enough, this conflict can't literally drag on forever, not even till Heath Death.
And I want to echo this. Israel is not subject to international opinion in its treatment of Gaza right now. The consequences of turning it into a rubble heap, putting it under a starvation siege for a year, and then deporting the survivors(unless they’re military aged males, those go to a prison camp forever) will be a UN resolution, some strongly worded notes, and that’s about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link