naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
29947 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.
Suppose you were a moderate leader of the Palestinians. What on Earth could you possibly do to end the suffering and negotiate a lasting peace?
Palestinians appear to feel very strongly about unrestricted right of return. In the failed Camp David talks, Arafat demanded 150,000 Palestinians in the diaspora be allowed to settle Israel per year while Israel pushed back and said 100,000 total, though they offered a $30 billion fund to help Palestinians abroad to attain permanent settlement abroad.
This is pretty far apart. Israel doesn’t want to be demographically obliterated but Palestinians that fled Israel consider it their ancestral home.
How do you reconcile this? Wouldn’t any Palestinian leader that negotiated a peace deal without this be considered illegitimate and probably marked for death?
On the other hand, would the hostilities even end if Israel somehow agreed to unrestricted ROR? There’s so much bad blood that even this is hard to imagine as being the thing that achieves lasting peace.
I’m not sure any concession short of Israel packs up and leaves forever would end the violence.
Is it wrong to demand that Israelis relocate to Florida? It’s not like they can’t move all of their holy buildings. Surely the terra itself isn’t sacred?
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
dr_analog 7mo ago
Suppose you were a moderate leader of the Palestinians. What on Earth could you possibly do to end the suffering and negotiate a lasting peace?
Right now? Nothing. The cynics are right that the Palestinian people* do not actually want peace. When they say they want peace, what they mean is they want the Israel to stop attacking them. So that they can rebuild and prepare for the next attack. This is the blackpill, cynical view, and it's terrible and tragic, and it's also correct.
This does not mean I think Palestinians deserve to be genocided or that being part of a "death cult," as others have so colorfully put it, is in their genes. But it is very much part of the current culture and political ethos, and it's been baked in for generations. Whether or not they are justified in this view is beside the point. Argue about the creation of Israel and who wronged who first harder all you want, but that doesn't change the current situation on the ground. Palestinians want Israel literally destroyed, which makes any halfway compromise difficult. All you're really offering is a temporary ceasefire. The only long term peace (assuming that actually eradicating Israel is off the table - which for moral and practical purposes it almost certainly is) is a cultural change among the Palestinians that leads to the next generation being willing to genuinely coexist and "bury the hatchet." I think this is theoretically possible, with sufficiently strong and dedicated leadership willing to pursue this. You'd need both Palestinians and Israelis fully bought into the project, and right now, and for the foreseeable future, neither of them are. It would be a very long-term project, and I am very pessimistic about it happening in any of our lifetimes. I think one side or the other committing genocide is more likely.
Obviously, I do not literally mean every single Palestinians. There are Palestinians who want peace, who would genuinely embrace peaceful coexistence with Jews. But they are a small minority with functionally no political influence in Palestine for the foreseeable future.
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 -
Suppose you were a moderate leader of the Palestinians. What on Earth could you possibly do to end the suffering and negotiate a lasting peace?
Palestinians appear to feel very strongly about unrestricted right of return. In the failed Camp David talks, Arafat demanded 150,000 Palestinians in the diaspora be allowed to settle Israel per year while Israel pushed back and said 100,000 total, though they offered a $30 billion fund to help Palestinians abroad to attain permanent settlement abroad.
This is pretty far apart. Israel doesn’t want to be demographically obliterated but Palestinians that fled Israel consider it their ancestral home.
How do you reconcile this? Wouldn’t any Palestinian leader that negotiated a peace deal without this be considered illegitimate and probably marked for death?
On the other hand, would the hostilities even end if Israel somehow agreed to unrestricted ROR? There’s so much bad blood that even this is hard to imagine as being the thing that achieves lasting peace.
I’m not sure any concession short of Israel packs up and leaves forever would end the violence.
Is it wrong to demand that Israelis relocate to Florida? It’s not like they can’t move all of their holy buildings. Surely the terra itself isn’t sacred?
Right now? Nothing. The cynics are right that the Palestinian people* do not actually want peace. When they say they want peace, what they mean is they want the Israel to stop attacking them. So that they can rebuild and prepare for the next attack. This is the blackpill, cynical view, and it's terrible and tragic, and it's also correct.
This does not mean I think Palestinians deserve to be genocided or that being part of a "death cult," as others have so colorfully put it, is in their genes. But it is very much part of the current culture and political ethos, and it's been baked in for generations. Whether or not they are justified in this view is beside the point. Argue about the creation of Israel and who wronged who first harder all you want, but that doesn't change the current situation on the ground. Palestinians want Israel literally destroyed, which makes any halfway compromise difficult. All you're really offering is a temporary ceasefire. The only long term peace (assuming that actually eradicating Israel is off the table - which for moral and practical purposes it almost certainly is) is a cultural change among the Palestinians that leads to the next generation being willing to genuinely coexist and "bury the hatchet." I think this is theoretically possible, with sufficiently strong and dedicated leadership willing to pursue this. You'd need both Palestinians and Israelis fully bought into the project, and right now, and for the foreseeable future, neither of them are. It would be a very long-term project, and I am very pessimistic about it happening in any of our lifetimes. I think one side or the other committing genocide is more likely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link