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?
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.)
I'm pro-Israeli and think Israel over all is one of the more moral countries in the world and has just been put in a very difficult situation. But I think the settlements do not have good justification at all, and because of that complete lack of justification are a blight on Israel's record.
The Netanyahu government seems like it’s on her side at least through benign neglect. Why does her cause have so much political power?
I'm given to understand in modern politics, a very dedicated interest group can wield a ton of power even if they aren't very large.
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 don't know what the international law is, but personally I think if someone illegal crosses into another states territory during a period of heightened tensions like the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, that state is allowed to kill them.
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 prefer it over a deal where they were allowed to stay even if Israel got nothing else for it. The settlements aren't a deal breaker for my support for Israel, but that's just because I think Palestine is even worse. The settlements are still a bad thing.
I don’t think there can be a two state solution. There can only be a one state solution at this point in time with some devolved control. But that doesn’t mean the settlements are just or right to maintain.
I think Israel would be better off maintaining the current state of affairs than going for a one state solution. I don't think the Palestinians would let go of their hate for Israel even if they were granted voting rights and freedom of movement, and giving voting rights and freedom of movement to a population that violently hates you would not go well.
I think one state solution with a population in Gaza that isn’t permitted to vote for the Knesset. But they could have a local parliament for civil governance.
Saudi Arabia laughs at you in fuck-you money. Most of the Gulf States rely on second class citizens/migrant workers while their primary citizens lounge about on welfare if they wish to.
There's a big difference between treating your imported brown labour class poorly (western nations that cry about racism do this all the time, I've run into indian physicists working in supermarket delis) and having an explicit category of second class citizens who cannot vote.
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'm pro-Israeli and think Israel over all is one of the more moral countries in the world and has just been put in a very difficult situation. But I think the settlements do not have good justification at all, and because of that complete lack of justification are a blight on Israel's record.
I'm given to understand in modern politics, a very dedicated interest group can wield a ton of power even if they aren't very large.
I don't know what the international law is, but personally I think if someone illegal crosses into another states territory during a period of heightened tensions like the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, that state is allowed to kill them.
I'd prefer it over a deal where they were allowed to stay even if Israel got nothing else for it. The settlements aren't a deal breaker for my support for Israel, but that's just because I think Palestine is even worse. The settlements are still a bad thing.
I don’t think there can be a two state solution. There can only be a one state solution at this point in time with some devolved control. But that doesn’t mean the settlements are just or right to maintain.
I think Israel would be better off maintaining the current state of affairs than going for a one state solution. I don't think the Palestinians would let go of their hate for Israel even if they were granted voting rights and freedom of movement, and giving voting rights and freedom of movement to a population that violently hates you would not go well.
I think one state solution with a population in Gaza that isn’t permitted to vote for the Knesset. But they could have a local parliament for civil governance.
An explicit apartheid state? Good luck selling that in the modern world.
Saudi Arabia laughs at you in fuck-you money. Most of the Gulf States rely on second class citizens/migrant workers while their primary citizens lounge about on welfare if they wish to.
There's a big difference between treating your imported brown labour class poorly (western nations that cry about racism do this all the time, I've run into indian physicists working in supermarket delis) and having an explicit category of second class citizens who cannot vote.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link