naraburns nihil supernum
7mo ago
(text post)
12753 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #3
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.
Arguably the occupation of Germany hasn't ended yet.
That seems stretching term occupation quite far. Are you going to argues that Japan and South Korea are also occupied by USA?
It also calls on Israel to enlist the international community in support of this endeavor.
Do they want also a pony? And eternal youth? Egypt was already floating/threatening "and we will take all of them to Europe" or "take them to Europe if you want".
The goal of Hamas' attacks was to provoke Israeli reaction, that will make it impossible for the Saudis et al to accept Israeli diplomacy. And the Israelis, in their infinite wisdom, are deciding to do exactly what Hamas hoped they would do, and hoping that if they do it harder and better than Hamas thought they would do it that they'll win. That seems like a fool's bargain.
Yeah, sadly so far Hamas is clearly winning. Or at least losing less than Israel.
That seems stretching term occupation quite far. Are you going to argues that Japan and South Korea are also occupied by USA?
Yes, obviously. Why would I say otherwise? A nation that has tens of thousands of soldiers from another country is occupied. That asking them to leave seems like it would be basically impossible with current political constraints further solidifies that this is an occupation, albeit a polite and friendly one. Some countries are better to be occupied than others, the Romans and Americans were both civilizing influences that protected the interests of their clients and vassals, but this is still what occupation looks like.
The difference between "occupation" and "allies" or "mercenaries" is that you can politely ask "allies" or "mercenaries" to leave, and they will pack up and go, whereas once you are occupied you lose that ability forever. Guantanamo Bay is occupied. Korea is not.
In the 1950s one could plausibly say that the US was occupying Korea. US troops based in the center of Seoul propped up dictators that benefited US interests. However, fifteen years ago the democratically elected Korean government asked the US to get its troops out of Seoul. The US did. Now there is a large swath of vacant land between the old city and Gangnam. The US is still in Korea, but critically the US garrison in Korea is maintained on the request the Korean government. The relationship is mutually beneficial: the US gains a base of operations counter Chinese expansion, and the Koreans gain a tripwire against North Korean expansion. In particular, the Koreans are willing to pay to keep the US troops garrisoned: when Trump hinted at leaving, the Korean side fussed and then increased their side of the bill. (Japan picked up the whole bill right away without a fuss, because Japan knows it is in their interest to pay to stay in the Pax Americana.) So Korea and Japan willing to pay to be "occupied"? That's not a military occupation by any definition I know. (I don't know anything about Germany but suspect the situation is similar.)
Yes. I would say that Japan and Germany are both still somewhat constrained in their sovereignty and freedom of movement by the presence of US military bases on their territory, and by the international system those bases symbolize.
Moreover, consider the parallel: an Israeli base in Gaza would be a constant target.
Though I would not call it occupation - I would say that calling PRL (communist period in Poland) a "Russian occupation" is already unusual stretching of this term.
If what happens in Germany is occupation then you may as well consider USA to be occupied by Israel AND Hamas.
I'm mostly being cheeky, but I feel like to properly define Occupation we first need to define Sovereignty and Freedom and all those other fun words and philosophical concepts, along with gaming out counterfactual scenarios where Germany tries to leave the American world-system.
An occupation in my mind is ongoing where you have 1) Foreign troops not drawn from your sovereign state and not under the control of your sovereign state deployed in your sovereign state whose presence 2) significantly restricts the state's sovereignty.
Is obviously satisfied, American troops are neither drawn from nor under the control of Germany
Is where it gets sticky, because German sovereignty is obviously restricted in some ways by the potential consequences of betraying the American system, but Rammstein is more symbolic of the consequences of leaving that system than the enforcer of those consequences, so is their presence the thing restricting those actions?
2a) Then we get into defining Sovereignty. Extremists like 18th-century-radicals along the heart of Kulak will define sovereignty as the complete freedom to do whatever the sovereign chooses, of course no state has ever had that kind of freedom to act. Medieval kings are almost emblematic of sovereignty, but if they made too big a move they would face consequences that would restrict their actions. Is Germany's range of action more restricted, or its consequences faced more severe, such that we say that it is totally restricted in its sovereignty? I don't know.
2b) Defining freedom of action. Would the American troops stationed in Germany be able to physically prevent Germany from invading Poland? Probably not by force, but it is possible that by cutting supply chains that run through those bases and the greater universe of NATO cooperation the USA could make it impossible for Germany to invade Poland.
On balance I don't know if it fully qualifies, but it is certainly close enough to point to as an exemplar of what Israel is in for. Does Israel want to have bases in a Gaza still full of Palestinians 60 years from now?
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 -
That seems stretching term occupation quite far. Are you going to argues that Japan and South Korea are also occupied by USA?
Do they want also a pony? And eternal youth? Egypt was already floating/threatening "and we will take all of them to Europe" or "take them to Europe if you want".
Yeah, sadly so far Hamas is clearly winning. Or at least losing less than Israel.
Yes, obviously. Why would I say otherwise? A nation that has tens of thousands of soldiers from another country is occupied. That asking them to leave seems like it would be basically impossible with current political constraints further solidifies that this is an occupation, albeit a polite and friendly one. Some countries are better to be occupied than others, the Romans and Americans were both civilizing influences that protected the interests of their clients and vassals, but this is still what occupation looks like.
The difference between "occupation" and "allies" or "mercenaries" is that you can politely ask "allies" or "mercenaries" to leave, and they will pack up and go, whereas once you are occupied you lose that ability forever. Guantanamo Bay is occupied. Korea is not.
In the 1950s one could plausibly say that the US was occupying Korea. US troops based in the center of Seoul propped up dictators that benefited US interests. However, fifteen years ago the democratically elected Korean government asked the US to get its troops out of Seoul. The US did. Now there is a large swath of vacant land between the old city and Gangnam. The US is still in Korea, but critically the US garrison in Korea is maintained on the request the Korean government. The relationship is mutually beneficial: the US gains a base of operations counter Chinese expansion, and the Koreans gain a tripwire against North Korean expansion. In particular, the Koreans are willing to pay to keep the US troops garrisoned: when Trump hinted at leaving, the Korean side fussed and then increased their side of the bill. (Japan picked up the whole bill right away without a fuss, because Japan knows it is in their interest to pay to stay in the Pax Americana.) So Korea and Japan willing to pay to be "occupied"? That's not a military occupation by any definition I know. (I don't know anything about Germany but suspect the situation is similar.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. I would say that Japan and Germany are both still somewhat constrained in their sovereignty and freedom of movement by the presence of US military bases on their territory, and by the international system those bases symbolize.
Moreover, consider the parallel: an Israeli base in Gaza would be a constant target.
Though I would not call it occupation - I would say that calling PRL (communist period in Poland) a "Russian occupation" is already unusual stretching of this term.
If what happens in Germany is occupation then you may as well consider USA to be occupied by Israel AND Hamas.
I'm mostly being cheeky, but I feel like to properly define Occupation we first need to define Sovereignty and Freedom and all those other fun words and philosophical concepts, along with gaming out counterfactual scenarios where Germany tries to leave the American world-system.
An occupation in my mind is ongoing where you have 1) Foreign troops not drawn from your sovereign state and not under the control of your sovereign state deployed in your sovereign state whose presence 2) significantly restricts the state's sovereignty.
Is obviously satisfied, American troops are neither drawn from nor under the control of Germany
Is where it gets sticky, because German sovereignty is obviously restricted in some ways by the potential consequences of betraying the American system, but Rammstein is more symbolic of the consequences of leaving that system than the enforcer of those consequences, so is their presence the thing restricting those actions?
2a) Then we get into defining Sovereignty. Extremists like 18th-century-radicals along the heart of Kulak will define sovereignty as the complete freedom to do whatever the sovereign chooses, of course no state has ever had that kind of freedom to act. Medieval kings are almost emblematic of sovereignty, but if they made too big a move they would face consequences that would restrict their actions. Is Germany's range of action more restricted, or its consequences faced more severe, such that we say that it is totally restricted in its sovereignty? I don't know.
2b) Defining freedom of action. Would the American troops stationed in Germany be able to physically prevent Germany from invading Poland? Probably not by force, but it is possible that by cutting supply chains that run through those bases and the greater universe of NATO cooperation the USA could make it impossible for Germany to invade Poland.
On balance I don't know if it fully qualifies, but it is certainly close enough to point to as an exemplar of what Israel is in for. Does Israel want to have bases in a Gaza still full of Palestinians 60 years from now?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link