site banner
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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What's up with Senate passing a resolution affirming support for Israel 97-0? As a flyover pleb I'm genuinely confounded by this. I do not give a single shit about either Palestinians and Israelis, and I honestly have a negative feeling towards both of them since I'm pretty sure they would abuse me if I lived in there country and they probably despise my race/religion/way of life. My preferred response to such a proposed resolution by my elected officials would be "lol who cares," but somehow nearly everyone across the entire political spectrum feels either conviction or pressure to signal support for one side of this ugly foreign conflict.

What's going on here? I know there's the "Jews secretly control the government" thesis, but a massive global conspiracy has never seemed like the most parsimonious explanation. What's the motivation of, say, a senator from Mississippi or Oregon to affirm their support? My hunch is that the political calculus is simply that "supporting" Israel bears little to no political costs, whereas opposing/ignoring Israel might have a remote risk of negative publicity or loss of campaign funding.

Is there a more nuanced explanation?

Foreign policy is a thing, and Israel is one of the US' most steadfast allies outside of the Anglosphere and the #1 ally in the Middle East, modulo oil and weapons deals with the Saudis.

There is also the question of shared values. Liberal democracies are natural allies, unlike the rest of the Middle East.

It has very little to do with religion or ethnicity, IMHO.

Liberal democracies are natural allies

I took a political science class long ago back when I was in college. The professor (somewhat humorously) presented a darker take on this. Claiming that liberal democracies gang up on and attack non-liberal-non-democracy countries and wage endless war to make the current global order.

Chicago school professors to the right of you, CIA-backed Army-Ranger-trained death squads to the left.

Or as Dylan put it, Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

Democracy has always implied significantly more than just voting in the western understanding. Variously it has included Capitalism, minority rights, gay rights, secularism.

Israel is one of the US' most steadfast allies outside of the Anglosphere and the #1 ally in the Middle East,

It's also the US' most poisonous ally; the alliance with Israel is the whole reason the US has problems in the Near East. Osama bin Laden explicitly cited that alliance as his motive for the Twin Towers. And, y'know, there have been multiple instances of Israel selling US weapons to the PRC.

And, y'know, there have been multiple instances of Israel selling US weapons to the PRC.

This is a good criticism. Lead with this next time.

Osama bin Laden explicitly cited that alliance as his motive for the Twin Towers.

"Why aren't we doing what the mass murderers want!?", on the other hand, is not a good criticism. Bad game theory, bad morality, really undercuts any presumption of objectivity. A lot of jihadi ideology traces back to Qutb getting pissy about dancing; should we ban subversive media like "Footloose" to keep them appeased?

I've contemplated how much of modern jihadi violence can traced back to an adult monitored church youth social event circa 1958. And also every now and then an American woman smiling at an exchange student when he stared at them.

I've contemplated how much of modern jihadi violence can traced back to an adult monitored church youth social event circa 1958.

Thanks for the article on this; it's what I was referring to but I was too lazy to find a writeup.

And also every now and then an American woman smiling at an exchange student when he stared at them.

This, on the other hand, isn't ringing any bells for me. Was this an actual "inciting" event? (or multiple events? "now and then"?)

Not a particular incident. Just general complaint that sometimes American women smile at men looking at them. I can't find the quote now.

The American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs -- and she shows all this and does not hide it.

Which is not the quote I was looking for, but shows his opinion regarding American women. And of course this is the 1950s, so he meant to say you can see the shape of the lower part of their legs beneath their skirts covered in high stocking so no skin is showing.

Also while looking for that quote I found that the American town Qutb lived in outlawed alcohol. So he was indeed radicalized going to church social events and high school wrestling matches in a dry town in the 50s.

Just saying: it's not much of a benefit that Israel helps out with Near East conflicts, when we would have avoided both Afghanistan and Iraq had the US not been allied to Israel.

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