site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   30285 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).

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.

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