naraburns nihil supernum
2yr ago
(text post)
31620 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 feel like it's kind of incoherent to ask how America would react in circumstance that America wouldn't be in.
Like, in order to have Mexicans feel about the US the way Palestinians feel about Israel, the US would have to have a very different national character that made us do very different things.
What would we do if we were very different from what we are now? Who knows!
Which is an important point about analogies and popular imagination on this topic; we all talk about how various western democracies would respond if they were in Israel's place, with the implication that the answer to that question is what it would be reasonable for Israel to do, and we should side with them if they do that.
But there's a reason none of those western democracies are in Israel's place, that reason has a lot to do with Israel's actions as a nation, and those actions do change what is reasonable for them to do, and who we should side with.
But there's a reason none of those western democracies are in Israel's place, that reason has a lot to do with Israel's actions as a nation, and those actions do change what is reasonable for them to do, and who we should side with.
I can appreciate that the US is not Israel, but why aren't the actions of the Palestinians in the territories also a factor? If they had followed Gandhi (as mentioned elsewhere) they would have probably been a lot more successful and not suffered so much. And the physical and cultural destruction we carried out on Japan in WW2 which was surely far more outrageous was apparently very productive.
You're certainly right, I was just narrowly addressing the question by examining the US/Israel analogy it used. It definitely takes two to tango in situations like this, and either side probably could be in a better place today by being more civil in the past.
I do personally have an ethos that says the burden of being civilized and absorbing affronts while continuing to reach for peace should always be on the stronger and more comfortable party in any conflict, partially because they can afford it, partially because that burden is the only way to end up at anything like an equitable resolution to a conflict between a stronger and weaker party.
But I acknowledge that there's something there in the intuition of 'the stronger party should overwhelm the weaker party brutally and efficiently so that the bad equilibrium ends quickly and hopefully the new equilibrium is better for everyone'.
I think that approach is too vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and works worse overall, but maybe this is one of those cases where different contexts call for different solutions and I am overgeneralizing my heuristics to a situation where they don't work.
Good points, though, I suspect if Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and Vietnam bordered us the American people would experience far more collateral damage and the US military would behave quite monstrously. Perhaps some degree of civility depends on circumstance and context, as you say.
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 feel like it's kind of incoherent to ask how America would react in circumstance that America wouldn't be in.
Like, in order to have Mexicans feel about the US the way Palestinians feel about Israel, the US would have to have a very different national character that made us do very different things.
What would we do if we were very different from what we are now? Who knows!
Which is an important point about analogies and popular imagination on this topic; we all talk about how various western democracies would respond if they were in Israel's place, with the implication that the answer to that question is what it would be reasonable for Israel to do, and we should side with them if they do that.
But there's a reason none of those western democracies are in Israel's place, that reason has a lot to do with Israel's actions as a nation, and those actions do change what is reasonable for them to do, and who we should side with.
I can appreciate that the US is not Israel, but why aren't the actions of the Palestinians in the territories also a factor? If they had followed Gandhi (as mentioned elsewhere) they would have probably been a lot more successful and not suffered so much. And the physical and cultural destruction we carried out on Japan in WW2 which was surely far more outrageous was apparently very productive.
You're certainly right, I was just narrowly addressing the question by examining the US/Israel analogy it used. It definitely takes two to tango in situations like this, and either side probably could be in a better place today by being more civil in the past.
I do personally have an ethos that says the burden of being civilized and absorbing affronts while continuing to reach for peace should always be on the stronger and more comfortable party in any conflict, partially because they can afford it, partially because that burden is the only way to end up at anything like an equitable resolution to a conflict between a stronger and weaker party.
But I acknowledge that there's something there in the intuition of 'the stronger party should overwhelm the weaker party brutally and efficiently so that the bad equilibrium ends quickly and hopefully the new equilibrium is better for everyone'.
I think that approach is too vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and works worse overall, but maybe this is one of those cases where different contexts call for different solutions and I am overgeneralizing my heuristics to a situation where they don't work.
/shrug, glad it's not my call.
Good points, though, I suspect if Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and Vietnam bordered us the American people would experience far more collateral damage and the US military would behave quite monstrously. Perhaps some degree of civility depends on circumstance and context, as you say.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link