naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
29919 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?
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?
Nothing. You try, you get killed and replaced by someone less moderate.
Wouldn’t any Palestinian leader that negotiated a peace deal without this be considered illegitimate and probably marked for death?
Yes.
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?
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?
Of course the land is sacred to them.
/tableflip
Ok, so...
Isn't this the Israelis falling a bit below the sanity waterline? Yes it's true they're surrounded on all sides by people who are so toxic that they would rather die than coexist with Israelis, or even just share a border with them, and yes these other people are behaving really, really badly. But given that Israel is not allowed to solve this the old fashioned way (genocide), and all avenues for peace have epsilon probability of success, ... shouldn't they just nope out?
I agree it sets a terrible precedent that your neighbors can get their way just by succumbing to a deep and apparently permanent craze, and ideally you'd like to prevail against them, but at some point shouldn't you just move to a better neighborhood? Unlike the Palestinians, there are other nations of the world that would welcome them.
Israelis seem destined to be in this fight for centuries, and they're apparently okay with it.
And when a bunch of 3rd world refugees get let in to America? America is only safe for Jews for as long as the current iteration of the Republican party survives as a major force in politics. If the left keeps winning, Jews eventually lose out in their own coalition of outsiders and the firing squad comes for them (for being competent and having money). If the current right collapses and re-organizes in a white nationalistic way, the Jews also lose, now being hated by the majority of both major parties. The reason for Israel is for Jews to govern Jews and hold borders for Jews.
The reason why Israel is important to the Israelis is not so much because they can't live anywhere else - Jews live in lots of not-Israel places. It's because they want a country - a place where Jews control the state apparatus and therefore the state apparatus will never be turned against Jews. It's there to be a refuge for Jews that need to flee persecution in other countries (as has indeed happened multiple times).
Do you think the US would be willing to allow Florida to secede and become New Israel?
The specific location of that country is obviously critical to them though -- Jerusalem being a sticky point in terms of where exactly the lines are drawn is maybe the most obvious example?
At this point you'd never get them to pack up and leave (absent massive genocide of course). But the early Zionists like Herzl were insistent on a Jewish state, but flexible about its location. There was discussion about establishing the Jewish state in places like Uganda or Argentina.
Of course that's not what actually happened - the fact that Israel is their ancestral homeland with great religious significance made it obviously the most desirable location. But table stakes for anyone who wants to argue that they should go somewhere else is they need to also explain which country is going to give up territory to them, rather than merely allow them to immigrate.
Many opportunities which would have made the problem more tractable have presented themselves in the past -- now those are passed, and here we are. The current reality is that two (apparently) incompatible groups are claiming the same piece of dirt -- this does not present any obvious solutions.
It seems they are going with "reduce their attacks to minor annoyance". While latest Hamas raid was humiliating and many people were murdered it is actually not SO problematic.
Isn't this the Israelis falling a bit below the sanity waterline?
No, and that you think so just means you do not accept their terminal values. Whether those terminal values are ipso facto insane can't be decided from the fact that they have homicidal opponents with conflicting terminal values.
But given that Israel is not allowed to solve this the old fashioned way (genocide), and all avenues for peace have epsilon probability of success, ... shouldn't they just nope out?
You're privileging some of the givens. That they want the holy land is also a given.
No, and that you think so just means you do not accept their terminal values. Whether those terminal values are ipso facto insane can't be decided from the fact that they have homicidal opponents with conflicting terminal values.
Yes I suppose am rejecting religious devotion to a piece of land as a terminal value when there is abundance of land on Earth that’s far less problematic. I consider this sub-sane.
This is independent from why the homicidal opponents want it, IMO.
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?
Nothing. You try, you get killed and replaced by someone less moderate.
Yes.
Of course the land is sacred to them.
/tableflip
Ok, so...
Isn't this the Israelis falling a bit below the sanity waterline? Yes it's true they're surrounded on all sides by people who are so toxic that they would rather die than coexist with Israelis, or even just share a border with them, and yes these other people are behaving really, really badly. But given that Israel is not allowed to solve this the old fashioned way (genocide), and all avenues for peace have epsilon probability of success, ... shouldn't they just nope out?
I agree it sets a terrible precedent that your neighbors can get their way just by succumbing to a deep and apparently permanent craze, and ideally you'd like to prevail against them, but at some point shouldn't you just move to a better neighborhood? Unlike the Palestinians, there are other nations of the world that would welcome them.
Israelis seem destined to be in this fight for centuries, and they're apparently okay with it.
And do what? Conquer so other part of our planet? How it would solve anything?
I was thinking buy condos in Florida like millions of Jews before them?
And when a bunch of 3rd world refugees get let in to America? America is only safe for Jews for as long as the current iteration of the Republican party survives as a major force in politics. If the left keeps winning, Jews eventually lose out in their own coalition of outsiders and the firing squad comes for them (for being competent and having money). If the current right collapses and re-organizes in a white nationalistic way, the Jews also lose, now being hated by the majority of both major parties. The reason for Israel is for Jews to govern Jews and hold borders for Jews.
More options
Context Copy link
The reason why Israel is important to the Israelis is not so much because they can't live anywhere else - Jews live in lots of not-Israel places. It's because they want a country - a place where Jews control the state apparatus and therefore the state apparatus will never be turned against Jews. It's there to be a refuge for Jews that need to flee persecution in other countries (as has indeed happened multiple times).
Do you think the US would be willing to allow Florida to secede and become New Israel?
The specific location of that country is obviously critical to them though -- Jerusalem being a sticky point in terms of where exactly the lines are drawn is maybe the most obvious example?
At this point you'd never get them to pack up and leave (absent massive genocide of course). But the early Zionists like Herzl were insistent on a Jewish state, but flexible about its location. There was discussion about establishing the Jewish state in places like Uganda or Argentina.
Of course that's not what actually happened - the fact that Israel is their ancestral homeland with great religious significance made it obviously the most desirable location. But table stakes for anyone who wants to argue that they should go somewhere else is they need to also explain which country is going to give up territory to them, rather than merely allow them to immigrate.
Many opportunities which would have made the problem more tractable have presented themselves in the past -- now those are passed, and here we are. The current reality is that two (apparently) incompatible groups are claiming the same piece of dirt -- this does not present any obvious solutions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems they are going with "reduce their attacks to minor annoyance". While latest Hamas raid was humiliating and many people were murdered it is actually not SO problematic.
More options
Context Copy link
We could try resurrecting the Schlatter plan.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, and that you think so just means you do not accept their terminal values. Whether those terminal values are ipso facto insane can't be decided from the fact that they have homicidal opponents with conflicting terminal values.
You're privileging some of the givens. That they want the holy land is also a given.
Yes I suppose am rejecting religious devotion to a piece of land as a terminal value when there is abundance of land on Earth that’s far less problematic. I consider this sub-sane.
This is independent from why the homicidal opponents want it, IMO.
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