naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
28921 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'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?
What was the realistic path to a Jewish state in Israel after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt circa the 130s AD? Imagine some handful of scruffy Jewish rebels, gathered around a campfire somewhere in the hills hiding from the Romans, defeated, demoralized, but still nationalists, still wanting to continue the struggle, talking about what will happen next, what can we do now to try to reestablish the nation? What is the Jewish path to victory? The Romans have all the power, they are guarding all the doors they are holding all the keys, they have immense military might that has subjugated the known world, they have money they draw in tribute from the entire known world, they are famously vindictive and brutal and unsparing of their soldiers' lives or of any cost in their pursuit of power. What possible path to victory would be possible for those few scattered Jews?
And imagine someone at that campfire giving the answer, giving a perfect farsighted prediction of what would really, actually happen to the Jewish people between their exile from the Holy Land under Hadrian and the founding of the new Jewish state in 1948. Even the most far-sighted Jew imaginable, the very mytheme of the Elder of Zion, could not have imagined an eighteen-hundred year sojourn through Europe that finally ended after an empire based in Britannia (that backwater?) fought an empire of Germans (those barbarians?) and tried to bribe the world's Jews with the potential for a return to Judea after they defeated their enemies the Turks (literally who is that?) in cooperations with the Russians (ok now you're just making up names, that's not even a real people); ultimately they would only succeed with help from the Americans (that's not even a real place).*
That is to say, if the Palestinians continue the struggle long enough, anything could happen. In the 1950s, Moscow's intervention in any conflict seemed certain and likely to be pivotal, while Chinese intervention seemed unlikely and unimportant, today those positions are reversed. The single most important thing is that the struggle does not end. The moment Palestinians cease to be Palestinians, or cease to struggle for Palestine from the River to the Sea, all hope is lost. As long as Palestinians exist, and as long as they struggle, hope will always be there, things could change. Which is why the Abraham Accords were such a potential knife to the heart for the Palestinian cause. The loss condition for Palestine From the River to the Sea is that Palestinians are absorbed into a bigger culture, whether that is Egypt or it is Jordan or it is GloboHomo, when that happens the game is over.
To return to our defeated Jewish Rebels circa 137, huddled around their campfire, knowing that the short remainder of their lives would be spent fleeing Roman legions hunting for them, there would have been one assumption too basic to even be said out loud: to reestablish the kingdom we must remain Jewish. We must maintain our identity as Jews. As long as the Jews survived as a distinct people, there is hope, there is always "next year in Jerusalem".
Assume that your utility function was identified purely with your identity group's possession of sovereignty over a given plot of land. Not with the members of the identity group, you do not care if they live good lives, if they suffer or die horribly, only if they possess sovereignty over a given plot of land. Not with the genetics of the identity group, you do not care if everyone in the world comes to have eyes and hair that look like those of your identity group, only if those who identify as your identity group have sovereignty over that given plot of land. Assume you are mostly or completely time-neutral, that establishing sovereignty in eighteen hundred years is infinitely superior to never establishing sovereignty.
In that case, your action would always be to continue the struggle, to keep the people together, to keep the faith alive. Because who knows, maybe the horse will sing.**
In reality, that's the Palestinian strategy. They have, as of today, no realistic win condition whatsoever. There is no realistic series of events that Hamas can trigger that will lead to victory. But the future is under no constraint that it must be realistic. They're just kicking the can down the road, over and over, hoping that things will change. But it worked before in Israel, why not again?
*Seriously, just think about the geography of the First World War from the perspective of a Jew in 132AD. The Rus wouldn't come to exist for centuries yet, and Kiev was on the borders of even the broadest geographical knowledge while Moscow was further yet into the unknown. No Turkish peoples, to my scant knowledge, ever ventured sufficiently far west that Judeans would know of them, though by analogy they would probably just seem like Scythians or Sarmatians or whoever. America, a vast land on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, would seem flatly mythical. The idea of a world dominated by Christian powers would seem as absurd to them as a world dominated by, idk, Scientology or Jainism would to modern Westerners.
**Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you."
As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now that was really stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try." Nasrudin's response: "Not at all. I have a year now that I didn't have before. And a lot of things can happen in a year. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die.
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.
What was the realistic path to a Jewish state in Israel after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt circa the 130s AD? Imagine some handful of scruffy Jewish rebels, gathered around a campfire somewhere in the hills hiding from the Romans, defeated, demoralized, but still nationalists, still wanting to continue the struggle, talking about what will happen next, what can we do now to try to reestablish the nation? What is the Jewish path to victory? The Romans have all the power, they are guarding all the doors they are holding all the keys, they have immense military might that has subjugated the known world, they have money they draw in tribute from the entire known world, they are famously vindictive and brutal and unsparing of their soldiers' lives or of any cost in their pursuit of power. What possible path to victory would be possible for those few scattered Jews?
And imagine someone at that campfire giving the answer, giving a perfect farsighted prediction of what would really, actually happen to the Jewish people between their exile from the Holy Land under Hadrian and the founding of the new Jewish state in 1948. Even the most far-sighted Jew imaginable, the very mytheme of the Elder of Zion, could not have imagined an eighteen-hundred year sojourn through Europe that finally ended after an empire based in Britannia (that backwater?) fought an empire of Germans (those barbarians?) and tried to bribe the world's Jews with the potential for a return to Judea after they defeated their enemies the Turks (literally who is that?) in cooperations with the Russians (ok now you're just making up names, that's not even a real people); ultimately they would only succeed with help from the Americans (that's not even a real place).*
That is to say, if the Palestinians continue the struggle long enough, anything could happen. In the 1950s, Moscow's intervention in any conflict seemed certain and likely to be pivotal, while Chinese intervention seemed unlikely and unimportant, today those positions are reversed. The single most important thing is that the struggle does not end. The moment Palestinians cease to be Palestinians, or cease to struggle for Palestine from the River to the Sea, all hope is lost. As long as Palestinians exist, and as long as they struggle, hope will always be there, things could change. Which is why the Abraham Accords were such a potential knife to the heart for the Palestinian cause. The loss condition for Palestine From the River to the Sea is that Palestinians are absorbed into a bigger culture, whether that is Egypt or it is Jordan or it is GloboHomo, when that happens the game is over.
To return to our defeated Jewish Rebels circa 137, huddled around their campfire, knowing that the short remainder of their lives would be spent fleeing Roman legions hunting for them, there would have been one assumption too basic to even be said out loud: to reestablish the kingdom we must remain Jewish. We must maintain our identity as Jews. As long as the Jews survived as a distinct people, there is hope, there is always "next year in Jerusalem".
Assume that your utility function was identified purely with your identity group's possession of sovereignty over a given plot of land. Not with the members of the identity group, you do not care if they live good lives, if they suffer or die horribly, only if they possess sovereignty over a given plot of land. Not with the genetics of the identity group, you do not care if everyone in the world comes to have eyes and hair that look like those of your identity group, only if those who identify as your identity group have sovereignty over that given plot of land. Assume you are mostly or completely time-neutral, that establishing sovereignty in eighteen hundred years is infinitely superior to never establishing sovereignty.
In that case, your action would always be to continue the struggle, to keep the people together, to keep the faith alive. Because who knows, maybe the horse will sing.**
In reality, that's the Palestinian strategy. They have, as of today, no realistic win condition whatsoever. There is no realistic series of events that Hamas can trigger that will lead to victory. But the future is under no constraint that it must be realistic. They're just kicking the can down the road, over and over, hoping that things will change. But it worked before in Israel, why not again?
*Seriously, just think about the geography of the First World War from the perspective of a Jew in 132AD. The Rus wouldn't come to exist for centuries yet, and Kiev was on the borders of even the broadest geographical knowledge while Moscow was further yet into the unknown. No Turkish peoples, to my scant knowledge, ever ventured sufficiently far west that Judeans would know of them, though by analogy they would probably just seem like Scythians or Sarmatians or whoever. America, a vast land on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, would seem flatly mythical. The idea of a world dominated by Christian powers would seem as absurd to them as a world dominated by, idk, Scientology or Jainism would to modern Westerners.
**Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you." As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now that was really stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try." Nasrudin's response: "Not at all. I have a year now that I didn't have before. And a lot of things can happen in a year. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die.
"And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link