site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  6mo ago (text post)   29934 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

[NYTimes, Friedman] Why a Gaza Invasion and ‘Once and for All’ Thinking Are Wrong for Israel

When The Times’s Israel correspondent Isabel Kershner recently asked an Israeli Army tank driver, Shai Levy, 37, to describe the purpose of the looming Israeli invasion of Gaza, he said something that really caught my ear. It was “to restore honor to Israel,” he said.

All these Islamist/jihadist movements — the Taliban, Hamas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Houthis — have deep cultural, social, religious and political roots in their societies. And they have access to endless supplies of humiliated young men, many of whom have never been in a job, power or a romantic relationship: a lethal combination that makes them easy to mobilize for mayhem.

And that’s why, to this day, none of these movements have been eliminated once and for all. They can, though, be isolated, diminished, delegitimized and decapitated — as America has done with ISIS and Al Qaeda. But that requires patience, precision, lots of allies and alternatives that have legitimacy within the societies from which these young men emerge.

Perhaps the greatest political challenge is what to do with surplus young men. It is this group that lies behind most terrorism, ISIS, inceldom, much of the dissident right, most challenges with policing and crime. Rich countries have more options than poorer ones, as do countries with lower birthrates compared to higher ones (due to reductions in the proportion of violent, dispossessed young men as a percentage of the total population).

Perhaps the greatest political challenge is what to do with surplus young men.

One massive benefit of artificial wombs when we get them is that we'll just be able to not conceive the surplus men in the first place by simply changing the gender ratio. It will improve the world so so much.

It will improve the world so so much.

It so definitely wouldn't. If it ever becomes a viable technology be ready for HUNKY GRADE-A BEEF Jarheads, coming of an assembly line, roided up naturally and ready to fight in endless wars.

Eh, I expect drones to take over the physical portion of warfare by that point, at best they would be operated by someone sitting thousands of km away, and you don't need roided up humans for that (one underrated benefit of drones is that even if the physical object is destroyed, all the combat experience is not lost, the drone operator keeps on getting better and better at waging war and can learn from his mistakes, while soldiers fighting in the flesh can find those same mistakes to be fatal, losing their army all the accumulated experience when they die).

A rather separate issue from very poor 3rd worlders having way too many kids with no prospects.

Artificial wombs won’t change very much. There is no scenario in which the vast majority of babies aren’t carried to term inside of a woman.

Getting artificial wombs does not imply natural wombs stop working. The vast majority of babies will continue to be born the old fashioned way.

Oh, I expect modernity to continue cratering birth rates, to the point where countries have to gestate a significant proportion of their future children in artificial wombs to maintain the population. When push comes to shove and the choice is between doing this or letting in millions more low IQ/fundamentally different culture people from the third world I expect governments to grudgingly fund this. Also, even if say 80% of all children are born as normal, you can still affect the net gender ratio by a lot by e.g. only gestating female embryos in artificial wombs (this will change the M:F ratio from 1.07:1 to 0.70:1).

Perhaps the greatest political challenge is what to do with surplus young men.

This is the lazy man's politics. It is saving the furniture once the house is already on fire.

The greatest political challenge is not being able to spread the social and political tools we've developed to avoid a surplus of disenfranchisement. I.e. good economic policy. We know capitalism works. We know free trade works. We know universal western or Turkish, or Korean or hell even Russian culture is better than Jihadi culture.

Capitalism can work. Not so sure on the free trade. A level of protectionism is needed because people aren't just fungible objects that will emigrate on the dime to "better work environments". Some would. But on the whole that's a destructive state of affairs.

Imposing Korean culture on Palestine by the sword is heterodox policy suggestion, but I'm here for it.

I endorse this plan.

Rule by the ones with the highest StarCraft MMR?

School from 7 am to midnight?

Hamas hagwon?

All these Islamist/jihadist movements — the Taliban, Hamas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Houthis — have deep cultural, social, religious and political roots in their societies. And they have access to endless supplies of humiliated young men, many of whom have never been in a job, power or a romantic relationship: a lethal combination that makes them easy to mobilize for mayhem.

This, of course, fails to reflect the situation of Islamist terrorists that have lived in the West. The men (and woman) that did 9/11, the Bataclan, San Bernadino, Pulse, the Boston Bombing, and so on weren't desperately poor and humiliated men. They did have something in common, and it certainly does reflect deep cultural, social, religious, and political roots, but that doesn't really do the work of generating sympathy for their desire to slay infidels.

Perhaps the greatest political challenge is what to do with surplus young men.

Ya know, surplus Mormons don't seem to be causing all that much trouble in Utah, or fanning out to murder people that aren't that into Kolob. I know that it's considered a downright Philistine position to take, but I think the actual, specific tenets of religion have something to do with the behavior of their practitioners.

Surplus Mormons don't do this because Utah is a highly prosperous and functioning society, even by American standards. Unfortunately we haven't figured out how to bring those societies to most of the world, so the problem of surplus violent young men is more salient elsewhere.

Lebanon was at one point a highly prosperous and functioning society, emphasis on ‘was’, and yet it broke out into a civil war when the Christians lost their majority by importing Muslim refugees.

Unfortunately we haven't figured out how to bring those societies to most of the world

But strangely we could a few decades ago at gunpoint. Desperately poor pre-industrialization mostly-farmers South Koreans could be administrated by the US Army and then a local dictator selected by the US Army and uplifted into a different sort of society. Not without negative consequences, birthrates etc. But it was done.

Not until after a coup. Syngman Rhee wasn't interested in raising the standard of living of the peasants.

These guys were actually doing fine in San Bernadino.

I genuinely don't understand the Western insistence that Islamists aren't telling the truth when they say that they kill infidels for Allah. Even if you can solve the prosperity problem, if you have a bunch of Islamists, you're still going to wind up with dead infidels. They're probably not great for prosperity either, which tends to be a related problem.

I genuinely don't understand the Western insistence that Islamists aren't telling the truth when they say that they kill infidels for Allah.

That can be true, and it still be true, that it is harder to find people willing to kill when the population is wealthier. I believe the IRA were killing in the name of Irish nationalism, but they still struggled to find recruits once Catholics in Northern Ireland became richer. You might still believe in the cause, but once you have a comfortable life, risking your life for it looks like a worse deal. You'll probably still get some, of course.

Perhaps the greatest political challenge is what to do with surplus young men.

Give them more money and power and respect. Speaking personally, I felt I had very little incentive to contribute to society for a long time. I would do the right thing and not get much in return, or I would do the wrong thing and at least get the satisfaction of doing what I wanted. Once people in my family died and I was given greater respect and means to change my position in life I began to respect my family and the society that I lived in more. The fact that people live very long lives now is leading to fewer young people with wealth, and old people don't have the energy or interest to improve the world around them in the same way that young people do. A wealth transfer to people with energy and a longer time horizon would really help keep them from eating each other alive.

That…that would be a textbook example of genocide.

Maybe it’s technologically possible, but I’d like to believe it’s several moral event horizons away.

I don’t think that playing into the “Jews poison the wells” trope so literally is a good idea.

What should Israel do to ensure that an attack like the one launched by Hamas never happens again? I don’t know right now.

This is basically all I seem to be hearing. Nobody knows what Israel should do (or rather, they have some sort of vague shopping list of 'hearts and minds' and 'developing Gaza'* with no idea how to make it happen in reality) but everyone apparently knows what it shouldn't do.

The only difference seems to be who the "how we got here" padding blames.

* Somehow, when you're dealing with terrorists that will literally steal infrastructure for weapons and brag about it.

Convert to Christianity and learn to love your enemies.

Taking this seriously, has this ever worked?

Seemed to work in the Northlands - bloodthirsty Vikings becoming orderly, peaceful Scandinavians.

Sure. Just be Romans. Then you can see your enemies driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women and love them and be redeemed by Christ.

The Roman Empire. Christians went from being eaten by lions in the Colloseum to being the official religion of the empire without ever raising an insurrection or fighting a civil war. It only took about 300 years of non-violent acceptance of persecution.

This is basically all I seem to be hearing. Nobody knows what Israel should do (or rather: they have some sort of vague shopping list of 'hearts and minds' and 'developing Gaza'* with no idea how to make it happen in reality) but everyone apparently knows what it shouldn't do.

I basically go up to everyone condemning Israel and say "zap! you're now the PM of Israel. what's your next move?" and I generally get a range from "Israel should follow international law" (hand wave hand wave) with no specifics on how they protect their security and sovereignty doing that, all the way to something the Heath Ledger version of The Joker would say.

none of these movements have been eliminated once and for all

Looking outside Muslim communities, Tamil terror in Sri Lanka was successfully eradicated through incredible violence. Unfortunately, this article might be right. Because the Sinhalese killed all the next-of-kin of the LTTE leadership. Left no room for revenge.

alternatives that have legitimacy within the societies from which these young men emerge.

This is why the rapid liberalization of Saudi society is so important. Iran can try as much as it likes, but Sunnis will always bear resentment towards them as Shias. If Mecca/Medina becomes westernized, then these men will finally have internal leaders with legitimacy who can steer these young men away.

humiliated young men

El salvador has managed to lock up 100k men almost overnight. So it can be done. It seems like the most achievable peaceful resolution to this war. Kill the terrorists and imprison all young and likely suspects. Let the absolute gravy-train of aid flow into restoring society for women and young children. Employ all older men with families in hard labor towards rebuilding Gaza on the south side of the strip. Ideally on a patch of land in west bank, but that's unlikely to work.

You can release the once angry youth back into society once peace has been restored over 20 years or so. Once stable society exists and the majority has known an improving life for the last couple of decades, the residents lose the appetite for violence. Most non-murderous Tamil, Sikh and Naga insurgents in India were happy to integrate into India when it became clear that they can still wield local power in a democracy without violence. But maybe Islam draws out a different kind of anger.

An ugly solution, but somehow still sounds better than all the other alternatives.

Looking outside Muslim communities, Tamil terror in Sri Lanka was successfully eradicated through incredible violence.

Also, how the British managed to stamp out the Mau Mau in Kenya.

Kill the terrorists and imprison all young and likely suspects. … Employ all older men with families in hard labor towards rebuilding Gaza on the south side of the strip.

You understand that this “peaceful resolution” is just isomorphic to war, right?

If you want to put all the young men in prison, then someone has to go round them up. By force.

Obviously, Hamas wouldn’t agree to this voluntarily.

Yep, fully agree.

A peaceful resolution is more so the "least violent" resolution than one that has no deaths. Mine is a fairly violent suggestion .... but still less violent than all the other options on the table. A temporary ceasefire might delay the violence, but it can't be called a resolution.

El salvador has managed to lock up 100k men almost overnight. So it can be done.

El Salvador was still (somehow) a democracy dealing with an internal problem of gangsters that honestly seem to have just gotten too big for their britches. They still had enough of a military advantage to handle it, feckless leadership apparently just had to learn to stop trying to pay them off because they were emboldened to keep escalating. Once they took action they actually had some legitimacy with the rest of the populace to enforce their rule.

I'm unsure if Mexico could honestly do the same now, with its more powerful cartels.

Let alone Israel which is not facing gangsters who were slowly transitioning into terrorism encouraged by governments paying the Danegeld but an active and prepared pseudo-sovereign terrorist group (who're opposed to identifying tattoos on principle, unlike LatAm sociopaths) holding sway over an entire region with in-built religious and historical reasons to hate Israelis. Hard to see where the legitimacy will come from here.

I don't think the limiting factor is the strength of Mexico's Military (watch cartel vs Army footage, the cartels get massacred every time, that one time CJNG took down a helicopter has been mythologized). In Mexico's case the real problem is just how bloody corrupt the government is on aggregate. If Mexico had someone unshakeable with a one-track mind like Bukeles, I'm sure they could probably achieve the same outcome.

The first time I became aware someone was corrupt was watching a general in the Mexican army being interviewed by Nightline or Newshour or some show. I was maybe 13 and I recall him telling the interviewer about how he had this many men and they were covering that many kilometers searching for the other cartel smugglers...

"Sir," the reporter interrupted, "How many have you caught?"

Ten seconds of dead silence, and the look on the general's face that made it clear catching people was not part of his plans--and that's the day I realized how the world worked.

I heard the same rant from every American General in command of the Afghanistan invasion and occupation for decades, though usually before a congress tame enough not to ask any awkward questions.

Dump hormone blockers into the water provided to Gaza. Science says they're 100% harmless, and they'd prevent development of aggressive masculine traits.

Science says they're 100% harmless

Er, no, hormone blockers are not harmless at all.

I read that as @ThenElection having his tongue firmly in his cheek, but sarcasm is notoriously hard to read over the internet.

Just open free Halal McDonalds and Pizza Hut, free supermarkets packed full of goods with high fructose corn syrup and give out free Steamdecks and Starlink access and flat screen tvs. Free cellphones with TikTok and Insta and Tinder baked in. Free condoms, free birth control pills. Start up the Real Housewives of the Gaza Strip and make a whole bunch of tv shows ostensibly set in the Islamic Middle East but pushing Western sexual mores. Open free pharmacies giving out opiates and antidepressants. We can do so much better than blue jeans and rock music nowadays.

Bring the full force of Western Decadence against them, and see who the strong horse really is.

As much as I expect the occupation of Gaza to be a disaster in every way, if Israel went this route for a decade or so, it might have a fighting chance of withering Hamas on the vine. High speed internet, porn, drugs, and obesity for all. Build an indigenous class of entrepreneurs and bureaucrats of decadence who'll act as an organic counterweight to Hamas.

Sounds like an incentive for western NEETs to go full pepewar on society so they can have all that appeasement too.

I think we could say, they already have most of those things, even in the US welfare will take you a long way towards most of them. Subsidized internet access is available in my state at least. In the Gaza case we're just not allowing them to pick what they spend the money on, so it doesn't end up buying AK's and so on.

Maybe toss in some gender studies professors.

as America has done with ISIS and Al Qaeda. But that requires patience, precision, lots of allies and alternatives that have legitimacy within the societies from which these young men emerge.

I'm pretty sure Al Qaeda and ISIS were mostly knocked down by consistent application of violence, not any of that stuff. How many times did the US kill the "#2" person in Al Qaeda?

IIRC one of the interesting things about the ISIS conflict was that it relied on a prophesy of declaring a caliphate and then winning global domination via victory in traditional battle, not guerilla terrorist tactics. This is, to put it kindly, an offer the West found acceptable, to the tune of tons of JDAMs and eventual victory of non-ISIS ground forces.

I remember someone in these parts observing that, although there is no evidence it was planned as such, it was certainly an effective honeypot at drawing in Muslims prone to violent extremism from around the world to a scenario where they became legitimate military targets.

They aren't mutually exclusive. IIRC the US first defeat of AQI (which became ISIS) involved mobilizing local militias to fight them as well.

What is this place?

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.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats