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.
Tangential to this, but The Brits Are At It Again.
Or at least Suella Braverman, demonstrating yet again her stunning knowledge of Irish history and Irish-UK relations. But first, some background which will be necessary, I promise.
Home Secretary in Rishi Sunak's cabinet, and before that in the same role under Liz Truss, Ms. Braverman first stood up with staunch defence of the Union over Brexit, resigning from her post as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union in Theresa May's government due to acceptance of a proposal to deal with the problem of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland being on the same island, the North exiting the EU with the rest of the UK while the South remains in the EU, and the resulting regulatory nightmare over the border etc. etc. etc.:
In her letter to the Prime Minister, Theresa May, she said: "It has, in many ways, been my dream job.
"However, I find myself unable to support the the deal agreed yesterday by Cabinet. It is therefore with deep regret that I tender my resignation."
Listing her reasons she said: "Firstly, the proposed Northern Ireland Backstop is not Brexit.
"It is not what the British people or my constituents voted for in 2016. It prevents an unequivocal exit from a customs union with the EU. This robs the UK of the main competitive advantages from Brexit.
"Secondly the the Backstop proposals set out different regulatory regimes for Northern Ireland and Great Britain, threatening to break our precious Union."
Note that bit about the precious Union, because Suella seems to know precious little about it. She is today yet again in the news for controversy, this time over claiming that pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London are hate marches and the police should be stopping them, and this is a double-standard where they crack down on right-wing protests but not left-wing ones. The comparison she made was very interesting, showing her ignorance of the actual situation on the ground in Northern Ireland:
UK HOME SECRETARY Suella Braverman has used Northern Ireland as a point of comparison as she characterised pro-Palestinian demonstrations planned for the UK on Armistice Day as “hate marches”.
Writing in The Times, Braverman said “hate marchers” intend to use the Armistice Day protest as a “show of strength”.
The Home Secretary also characterised alleged reports that organisers of Saturday’s march were linked to Hamas as “disturbingly reminiscent of Ulster”.
Braverman said: “I do not believe that these marches are merely a cry for help for Gaza.
“They are an assertion of primacy by certain groups — particularly Islamists — of the kind we are more used to seeing in Northern Ireland.
“Also disturbingly reminiscent of Ulster are the reports that some of Saturday’s march group organisers have links to terrorist groups, including Hamas.”
She dug herself in even deeper by clarifying that what she had referred to were dissident Republicans (no, not your Republicans, our Republicans):
A source close to the home secretary told BBC News NI that the comment was a reference to the activities of "dissident republicans".
Except.... the ones doing marches in Norn Iron? Known for it? They're the Unionists. The people on Suella's side with the same views about the United Kingdom. You know, the "precious Union" she loves so much? Marching Season is about one side asserting primacy, as she puts it, and they're not the splinter groups of dissidents. If you think this just looks like harmless historical cosplay and commemoration, er, it's not.
Yeah, the Republicans have marches and protests, but they're not what you automatically think of when you hear "marching in Northern Ireland".
Even the Orange Order knows what she means, or rather didn't mean, because she doesn't in fact know anything about the Union:
Orange Order Grand Secretary, the Rev Mervyn Gibson, said Ms Braverman should be more careful in her choice of language.
Speaking to The Irish News, he said: "One thing the Home Secretary could do is simply to clarify which parades she meant.
"I know there's some spin and briefings that she was referring to dissident republican parades, if that's the case then that's all she has to say.
"A clarification from the Home Secretary would certainly be welcome."
He added: "We don't recognise our parades as the one she's referring to.
"In fact we have written to her about the parades this weekend and her stance on those supporting Palestine and Hamas.
"We support her stance on those particular issues for Remembrance Weekend.
"But, she's been clumsy in what she's said."
On the one hand, this is just the typical British ignorance of what their Union really is, and how much they actually care about Northern Ireland (they don't, so far as they're concerned we're all Paddies and not real Brits, and they honestly can't tell the difference between the ones who support them politically and the ones who don't). On the other hand, if this is the kind of understanding she has about Israel, Gaza, and Hamas - oh brother. She's a prominent government official and she doesn't know her job.
Is there anything in Braverman's comments that would make them exclusively a reference to orange order parades? Drawing parallels to dissident republicans, particularly Saoradh, seems fairly apt, given that their attacks have been more recent and that they held parades shortly after murdering Lyra Mckee. Killing someone and then gloating about it via marches seems as applicable (or even moreso) to this as to the Orange Order.
This seems like scraping the barrel to find some reason to "debunk" Braverman when, broadly, her comments about the two-tier policing of protest in London are correct. Critics of lockdowns got beaten in the streets while advocates of Islamist terrorism are not. I agree with Braverman on almost nothing, but I do on this. The institutions of this country, antisemitic and anarcho-tyrannic as they are, seem deeply embaressed about being called out by a minister for this. Media, civil service, police, all would quite like to be rid of someone who's willing to challenge them and their racism.
Is there anything in Braverman's comments that would make them exclusively a reference to orange order parades?
(1) The 'clarification' only came out after everyone, including the head of the Orange Order, went "Er, Suella..."
(2) Let's say I write a newspaper article about "gatherings of masked and hooded persons dressed in white with crosses and torches", in the context of "This is a bad thing that should not be permitted", what would be the most likely reaction to that?
Then suppose I had to issue a clarification that "no no, I meant the Holy Week penitents!", because everyone thought I was talking about the Ku Klux Klan?
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 -
Tangential to this, but The Brits Are At It Again.
Or at least Suella Braverman, demonstrating yet again her stunning knowledge of Irish history and Irish-UK relations. But first, some background which will be necessary, I promise.
Home Secretary in Rishi Sunak's cabinet, and before that in the same role under Liz Truss, Ms. Braverman first stood up with staunch defence of the Union over Brexit, resigning from her post as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union in Theresa May's government due to acceptance of a proposal to deal with the problem of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland being on the same island, the North exiting the EU with the rest of the UK while the South remains in the EU, and the resulting regulatory nightmare over the border etc. etc. etc.:
Note that bit about the precious Union, because Suella seems to know precious little about it. She is today yet again in the news for controversy, this time over claiming that pro-Palestinian demonstrations in London are hate marches and the police should be stopping them, and this is a double-standard where they crack down on right-wing protests but not left-wing ones. The comparison she made was very interesting, showing her ignorance of the actual situation on the ground in Northern Ireland:
She dug herself in even deeper by clarifying that what she had referred to were dissident Republicans (no, not your Republicans, our Republicans):
Except.... the ones doing marches in Norn Iron? Known for it? They're the Unionists. The people on Suella's side with the same views about the United Kingdom. You know, the "precious Union" she loves so much? Marching Season is about one side asserting primacy, as she puts it, and they're not the splinter groups of dissidents. If you think this just looks like harmless historical cosplay and commemoration, er, it's not.
Yeah, the Republicans have marches and protests, but they're not what you automatically think of when you hear "marching in Northern Ireland".
Even the Orange Order knows what she means, or rather didn't mean, because she doesn't in fact know anything about the Union:
On the one hand, this is just the typical British ignorance of what their Union really is, and how much they actually care about Northern Ireland (they don't, so far as they're concerned we're all Paddies and not real Brits, and they honestly can't tell the difference between the ones who support them politically and the ones who don't). On the other hand, if this is the kind of understanding she has about Israel, Gaza, and Hamas - oh brother. She's a prominent government official and she doesn't know her job.
Here's Suella Braverman's actual article.
Is there anything in Braverman's comments that would make them exclusively a reference to orange order parades? Drawing parallels to dissident republicans, particularly Saoradh, seems fairly apt, given that their attacks have been more recent and that they held parades shortly after murdering Lyra Mckee. Killing someone and then gloating about it via marches seems as applicable (or even moreso) to this as to the Orange Order.
This seems like scraping the barrel to find some reason to "debunk" Braverman when, broadly, her comments about the two-tier policing of protest in London are correct. Critics of lockdowns got beaten in the streets while advocates of Islamist terrorism are not. I agree with Braverman on almost nothing, but I do on this. The institutions of this country, antisemitic and anarcho-tyrannic as they are, seem deeply embaressed about being called out by a minister for this. Media, civil service, police, all would quite like to be rid of someone who's willing to challenge them and their racism.
(1) The 'clarification' only came out after everyone, including the head of the Orange Order, went "Er, Suella..."
(2) Let's say I write a newspaper article about "gatherings of masked and hooded persons dressed in white with crosses and torches", in the context of "This is a bad thing that should not be permitted", what would be the most likely reaction to that?
Then suppose I had to issue a clarification that "no no, I meant the Holy Week penitents!", because everyone thought I was talking about the Ku Klux Klan?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I must still be missing context, because that protester seemingly equates the rerouting of a parade with genocide.
The very, very complicated historical tangle of the Two Traditions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link