naraburns nihil supernum
2yr ago
(text post)
31564 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
This is a refreshed 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.
Cynically, this is the Biden administration setting a trap for Netanyahu, such that if Netanyahu goes forward anyway despite US questions, the US will be able to leverage the 'we told you so' advantage to affect Israeli politics to get rid of Netanyahu once the rally-around-the-flag emotional unity passes. This won't help the situation per see, beyond maybe allowing a new leader change to stop furthering a terrible disaster.
Hopefully, the US sees the situation as a real risk for a moral event horizon and strategic cliff that Israel wouldn't be able to walk back from, and is trying to protect it from itself, and in the process save many Palestinians who would otherwise die.
Practically, the Americans are trying to work through the emotionally-driven reaction phase, and shape the Israeli action such that 'do something' doesn't mean 'do anything,' by pushing the Israelis to confront that many-an-anything can, in fact, be worse than no action at all. Whether this forestalls any action, or shapes it into a more productive action, the objective is to re-introduce long-term thinking back into what has been a major emotional shock reaction.
Since the Americans are uniquely positioned to engage the Israelis from a position of understanding the nature of the culture-shock, but also being able to acknowledge the costs of over-reaction and lack of foresight, here's hoping it works.
Netanyahu goes forward anyway despite US questions, the US will be able to leverage the 'we told you so' advantage to affect Israeli politics to get rid of Netanyahu once the rally-around-the-flag emotional unity passes.
Do you see the slighest chance Netanyahu survives this, politically? Safety has been the third rail in Israeli politics for its entire existence, this attack seems like a repudiation of the entire Likud philosophy for Gaza and the West Bank, and there's really not many spaces left to pull a rabbit out of a hat. The extent he's still in power is less a rally-around-the-flag unity and more just the procedural timeline.
The flip side is that there's not many of his domestic critics that claim any alternative to intervention, here. There's not really any vision for how to stop this from happening again without a ton of boots on the ground.
Sure, he could survive politicially. Everyone eventually falls from politics, but the key for political power actors remaining in place isn't their innate popularity, but the viability of alternatives. Even failed states continue to survive as long as no one else comes around to actually overthrow them. In Netanyahu's case, the question isn't 'was safety always delivered,' but whether 'was safety delivered more than the alternative,' which is still open for debate. Netanyahu can absolutely point at 'his' failure, and make the case that the alternative politicians would have had worse and more often. It's not like the attack has suddenly made the former left's 'let's make concessions for peace' more viable.
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 -
Cynically, hopefully, or practically?
Cynically, this is the Biden administration setting a trap for Netanyahu, such that if Netanyahu goes forward anyway despite US questions, the US will be able to leverage the 'we told you so' advantage to affect Israeli politics to get rid of Netanyahu once the rally-around-the-flag emotional unity passes. This won't help the situation per see, beyond maybe allowing a new leader change to stop furthering a terrible disaster.
Hopefully, the US sees the situation as a real risk for a moral event horizon and strategic cliff that Israel wouldn't be able to walk back from, and is trying to protect it from itself, and in the process save many Palestinians who would otherwise die.
Practically, the Americans are trying to work through the emotionally-driven reaction phase, and shape the Israeli action such that 'do something' doesn't mean 'do anything,' by pushing the Israelis to confront that many-an-anything can, in fact, be worse than no action at all. Whether this forestalls any action, or shapes it into a more productive action, the objective is to re-introduce long-term thinking back into what has been a major emotional shock reaction.
Since the Americans are uniquely positioned to engage the Israelis from a position of understanding the nature of the culture-shock, but also being able to acknowledge the costs of over-reaction and lack of foresight, here's hoping it works.
(I'm not very hopeful.)
Do you see the slighest chance Netanyahu survives this, politically? Safety has been the third rail in Israeli politics for its entire existence, this attack seems like a repudiation of the entire Likud philosophy for Gaza and the West Bank, and there's really not many spaces left to pull a rabbit out of a hat. The extent he's still in power is less a rally-around-the-flag unity and more just the procedural timeline.
The flip side is that there's not many of his domestic critics that claim any alternative to intervention, here. There's not really any vision for how to stop this from happening again without a ton of boots on the ground.
Sure, he could survive politicially. Everyone eventually falls from politics, but the key for political power actors remaining in place isn't their innate popularity, but the viability of alternatives. Even failed states continue to survive as long as no one else comes around to actually overthrow them. In Netanyahu's case, the question isn't 'was safety always delivered,' but whether 'was safety delivered more than the alternative,' which is still open for debate. Netanyahu can absolutely point at 'his' failure, and make the case that the alternative politicians would have had worse and more often. It's not like the attack has suddenly made the former left's 'let's make concessions for peace' more viable.
Wasn't Benny Gantz's pitch basically "I'll maintain the hardline vs Palestine but have less corruption"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link