naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
29911 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.
MelodicBerries
virtus junxit mors non separabit
6mo ago·Edited 6mo ago
There's been speculation that a ground invasion may not happen at all but rhetoric coming from Israel's defence minister would make it very hard to climb back from:
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to troops on the Gaza border: "You now see Gaza from afar, soon you will see it from the inside. The order will come."
Hard to be more clear than that. Others have noted that Israel's bombing campaign signals indecision but doing massive air strikes is normal procedure before any urban warfare. Certainly the US did the same before the Fallujah campaign.
More interesting to me is the endgame. Some kind of ethnic cleansing is clearly a goal that Israel pursues, but it prefers if it was done in co-operation with Egypt. Remove the Palestinians "temporarily" to tent cities for safety and then refuse to take them back. The Egyptians are smart enough to understand this and refuse to play ball (alternatively, seeking a higher price for their complicity).
The Israeli foreign minister has also stated that after the war is over, the territory of Gaza will decline. This was assumed to be annexation. But now the latest rumors making the rounds are a new buffer zone. I suspect the Israeli top brass are still debating these things among themselves. The final decision will probably be decided by a combination of battlefield developments and external pressure. But it certainly seems clear that Gaza's territory will shrink. Already 100K people are internally displaced with bombed out houses. That will increase dramatically in the case of a ground invasion. Perhaps this could be the endgame: making a huge number of inhabitants unable to return to smoldering ruins and thus force them outside Gaza (just as most people who lived in Mariupol left and likely never came back).
Either way, skepticism about any potential ground invasion now appears unwarranted barring any unforeseen event.
There's been speculation that a ground invasion may not happen at all but rhetoric coming from Israel's defence minister would make it very hard to climb back from:
I actually think that it can be very easy to climb back from it, all you need to do is to claim that it was all just disinformation campaign and feint to force Hamas to concentrate their troops so they can be bombed from afar or some such. Given that many people do not want Israel to attack Gaza by ground forces, such a narrative would be picked up and defended by media as well as many world leaders as shrewd and prudent, even if they just have to pretend it to be that way so Israel can save face.
I wonder if part of the strategy is just making (remaining) Gaza even more densely populated. We know urban living reduces birth rates. A more densely populated strip should spend up the birth rate decline.
This plan has tiny problem of Palestinians unable to teleport, Egyptians not being stupid enough to take them in and Europe likely not being stupid enough to take them in (two last in any significant numbers). Any other viable solutions?
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 -
There's been speculation that a ground invasion may not happen at all but rhetoric coming from Israel's defence minister would make it very hard to climb back from:
Hard to be more clear than that. Others have noted that Israel's bombing campaign signals indecision but doing massive air strikes is normal procedure before any urban warfare. Certainly the US did the same before the Fallujah campaign.
More interesting to me is the endgame. Some kind of ethnic cleansing is clearly a goal that Israel pursues, but it prefers if it was done in co-operation with Egypt. Remove the Palestinians "temporarily" to tent cities for safety and then refuse to take them back. The Egyptians are smart enough to understand this and refuse to play ball (alternatively, seeking a higher price for their complicity).
The Israeli foreign minister has also stated that after the war is over, the territory of Gaza will decline. This was assumed to be annexation. But now the latest rumors making the rounds are a new buffer zone. I suspect the Israeli top brass are still debating these things among themselves. The final decision will probably be decided by a combination of battlefield developments and external pressure. But it certainly seems clear that Gaza's territory will shrink. Already 100K people are internally displaced with bombed out houses. That will increase dramatically in the case of a ground invasion. Perhaps this could be the endgame: making a huge number of inhabitants unable to return to smoldering ruins and thus force them outside Gaza (just as most people who lived in Mariupol left and likely never came back).
Either way, skepticism about any potential ground invasion now appears unwarranted barring any unforeseen event.
I actually think that it can be very easy to climb back from it, all you need to do is to claim that it was all just disinformation campaign and feint to force Hamas to concentrate their troops so they can be bombed from afar or some such. Given that many people do not want Israel to attack Gaza by ground forces, such a narrative would be picked up and defended by media as well as many world leaders as shrewd and prudent, even if they just have to pretend it to be that way so Israel can save face.
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder if part of the strategy is just making (remaining) Gaza even more densely populated. We know urban living reduces birth rates. A more densely populated strip should spend up the birth rate decline.
More options
Context Copy link
This plan has tiny problem of Palestinians unable to teleport, Egyptians not being stupid enough to take them in and Europe likely not being stupid enough to take them in (two last in any significant numbers). Any other viable solutions?
This seems like an extremely remote chance, but might US be able to persuade Saudi Arabia? It would mean opening routes through Negev.
Convincing EU seems more likely than THAT.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link