naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
29970 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.
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.
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.
That's just kicking the question back though isn't it? Sure, politicians support Israel because opposing them has negative consequences but why is that the case?
I think this vote in particular is pretty meaningless, any nominal ally would get a vote of support after a major terrorist attack. But it's more puzzling why stuff like AOC opposing iron dome funding (until she caved and voted present) is so far outside the overton window. We can't agree on almost anything else but when it comes time to give money to Israel it passes with a supermajority.
That's just kicking the question back though isn't it? Sure, politicians support Israel because opposing them has negative consequences but why is that the case?
The answer is that the Democrats have a signifiant secular Jewish/academic bloc that will lobby on Israel's behalf on ethnic/racialist grounds and the Republicans have a significant Evangelical Bloc that will lobby on Israel's behalf for religious and cultural reasons. Additionally, there is the joint Republican/Democrat MIC bloc that will lobby on Israel's behalf for economic reasons (they're some of our best customers).
The palistinians might enjoy some support on Twitter from the intersectional left and the more autistic members of the alt-right because "Joos Bad" but in terms of actual influence on US politics compared to the three above, they're showing up with a BB gun to a Battleship fight.
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 -
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?
That's just kicking the question back though isn't it? Sure, politicians support Israel because opposing them has negative consequences but why is that the case?
I think this vote in particular is pretty meaningless, any nominal ally would get a vote of support after a major terrorist attack. But it's more puzzling why stuff like AOC opposing iron dome funding (until she caved and voted present) is so far outside the overton window. We can't agree on almost anything else but when it comes time to give money to Israel it passes with a supermajority.
The answer is that the Democrats have a signifiant secular Jewish/academic bloc that will lobby on Israel's behalf on ethnic/racialist grounds and the Republicans have a significant Evangelical Bloc that will lobby on Israel's behalf for religious and cultural reasons. Additionally, there is the joint Republican/Democrat MIC bloc that will lobby on Israel's behalf for economic reasons (they're some of our best customers).
The palistinians might enjoy some support on Twitter from the intersectional left and the more autistic members of the alt-right because "Joos Bad" but in terms of actual influence on US politics compared to the three above, they're showing up with a BB gun to a Battleship fight.
Iron Dome is a great example. Israel and Raytheon working hand in hand.
Insert Yes_Chad.png here
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link