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.
The purpose of West Bank settlements is to make a two-state solution impossible.
Palestinians can remain in the West Bank if they agree to be second class citizens without political rights.
Israel’s rightful land extends from the Euphrates to the Nile.
I don’t care about Palestinian children, only my own children.
I like the interview and I respect how honest she is. She doesn’t pretend this is about Hamas or terrorism or anything; it’s her tribe versus someone else’s tribe and her tribe should do whatever it takes to win.
Some thoughts/questions:
How mainstream is her view? My impression is that a lot of Israelis/Israel supporters implicitly think that ultimately there’s no long-term solution other than the killing/displacing all the Palestinians, but aren’t willing to bite the bullet and explicitly advocate for genocide (or know they should be more circumspect about it.)
The Netanyahu government seems like it’s on her side at least through benign neglect. Why does her cause have so much political power?
Does a settler/activist like her count as an enemy combatant? On one hand she operates under the colors of being a civilian. On the other hand it seems a little unfair for someone who is actively working to conquer your land to declare rules like “no sorry you’re only allowed to shoot at the guys who have rifles and body armor otherwise you’re a terrorist.”
For moderate pro-Israel people, is “kick all the settlers out of the West Bank” something you’d be willing to accept as part of a broader peace deal?
Does a settler/activist like her count as an enemy combatant? On one hand she operates under the colors of being a civilian. On the other hand it seems a little unfair for someone who is actively working to conquer your land to declare rules like “no sorry you’re only allowed to shoot at the guys who have rifles and body armor otherwise you’re a terrorist.”
I think that would make her a more legitimate target than the average civilian minding their own business in Israel, but a legitimate target? No strong opinion on that. It's not like the legitimacy of targets is a major sticking point for people who shoot up peace raves.
For moderate pro-Israel people, is “kick all the settlers out of the West Bank” something you’d be willing to accept as part of a broader peace deal?
I'd call myself strongly pro-Israel, to the extent that there's little or nothing they could do to the Palestinians that would make me withdraw my support (within the Overton Window of Israeli politics).
And the answer is yes, but only if the peace deal has any hope of being adhered to. I have a high opinion of Israel as a whole, not the fundamentalsist wackos who are the primarily inhabitants of the settlements. They could die in a house fire and I wouldn't be particularly fazed.
I'd call myself strongly pro-Israel, to the extent that there's little or nothing they could do to the Palestinians that would make me withdraw my support (within the Overton Window of Israeli politics).
I have noticed that a lot of Indians support Israel online, would you be able to shed some light on that phenomenon?
I have noticed that a lot of Indians support Israel online, would you be able to shed some light on that phenomenon?
Pure "enemy of my enemy" principle. Otherwise, devout Jews have no sympathy for Hinduism and devout Hindus think even less about any Abrahamic religion.
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 -
An interview in the New Yorker with settler/activist Daniella Weiss, The Extreme Ambitions of West Bank Settlers, is making the rounds on Twitter.
Tl;dr:
I like the interview and I respect how honest she is. She doesn’t pretend this is about Hamas or terrorism or anything; it’s her tribe versus someone else’s tribe and her tribe should do whatever it takes to win.
Some thoughts/questions:
I think that would make her a more legitimate target than the average civilian minding their own business in Israel, but a legitimate target? No strong opinion on that. It's not like the legitimacy of targets is a major sticking point for people who shoot up peace raves.
I'd call myself strongly pro-Israel, to the extent that there's little or nothing they could do to the Palestinians that would make me withdraw my support (within the Overton Window of Israeli politics).
And the answer is yes, but only if the peace deal has any hope of being adhered to. I have a high opinion of Israel as a whole, not the fundamentalsist wackos who are the primarily inhabitants of the settlements. They could die in a house fire and I wouldn't be particularly fazed.
I have noticed that a lot of Indians support Israel online, would you be able to shed some light on that phenomenon?
Pure "enemy of my enemy" principle. Otherwise, devout Jews have no sympathy for Hinduism and devout Hindus think even less about any Abrahamic religion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link