naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28924 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.
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.
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 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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link