naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29464 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a 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.
They probably believe that if they cause enough pain they really can eventually force Israel to give up territory for peace. They've seen, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Algeria, that great powers can be worn down and lose the will for continued occupation. And they're banking on Israel not doing all the things people are asking them to do on Twitter: "Turn Gaza into a parking lot." People here might argue that it would be "rational" for the Israelis to just go ahead and do a genocide, but they aren't going to do that.
I think Hamas is mistaken in that the situation in Palestine is obviously different from those other examples (notably, Israel knows that there would never be peace because Hamas's end goal is literally the destruction of Israel and they'll never settle for anything less). But Palestine does have a lot of global sympathy so Israel still cannot "make the rubble bounce" even if they wanted to.
And while @WhiningCoil's take is just the usual low effort sneering, he's not completely wrong that actual religious beliefs play a part: most Muslims aren't in it for the "72 virgins" but they genuinely do believe that God is on their side and thus they will inevitably prevail.
notably, Israel knows that there would never be peace because Hamas's end goal is literally the destruction of Israel and they'll never settle for anything less
That's not even the most notable difference. The Afghans weren't attempting to remove America from Long Island, they were attempting to remove America from Afghanistan. The Algerians weren't trying to take Provence, they were trying to take Algeria.
But how much? Will they agree to 1967 borders? To the 1947 UN partition plan? Or only to pushing the last Jew into the Med?
Answers will probably vary depending on which Palestinian you ask, but as I said below, I've become blackpilled enough to believe that most Palestinians today, deep down, want the destruction of Israel and nothing less. Will anything ever persuade a critical mass to accept some sort of lasting, stable plan for coexistence? Not in a timespan of less than several generations.
No, one's person's sneering is sneering. You don't actually know much about Islam except what you learn from mainlining outrage online. Citing spicy quotes from holy books is Twitter-level, which is why you don't pile on in agreement when our resident Joo-posters are throwing around the one about goys being servants of Jews.
Then I don't understand your accusation of sneering, except to grant unearned charity to the obviously guilty party here. You acted like my bringing up that call to genocide was a complete non-sequitur. Like it's unfair or "sneering" to point out someone's publicly stated beliefs, openly expressed, enshrined in religion, government, media, and man on the street interviews.
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 -
They probably believe that if they cause enough pain they really can eventually force Israel to give up territory for peace. They've seen, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Algeria, that great powers can be worn down and lose the will for continued occupation. And they're banking on Israel not doing all the things people are asking them to do on Twitter: "Turn Gaza into a parking lot." People here might argue that it would be "rational" for the Israelis to just go ahead and do a genocide, but they aren't going to do that.
I think Hamas is mistaken in that the situation in Palestine is obviously different from those other examples (notably, Israel knows that there would never be peace because Hamas's end goal is literally the destruction of Israel and they'll never settle for anything less). But Palestine does have a lot of global sympathy so Israel still cannot "make the rubble bounce" even if they wanted to.
And while @WhiningCoil's take is just the usual low effort sneering, he's not completely wrong that actual religious beliefs play a part: most Muslims aren't in it for the "72 virgins" but they genuinely do believe that God is on their side and thus they will inevitably prevail.
That's not even the most notable difference. The Afghans weren't attempting to remove America from Long Island, they were attempting to remove America from Afghanistan. The Algerians weren't trying to take Provence, they were trying to take Algeria.
More options
Context Copy link
But how much? Will they agree to 1967 borders? To the 1947 UN partition plan? Or only to pushing the last Jew into the Med?
Answers will probably vary depending on which Palestinian you ask, but as I said below, I've become blackpilled enough to believe that most Palestinians today, deep down, want the destruction of Israel and nothing less. Will anything ever persuade a critical mass to accept some sort of lasting, stable plan for coexistence? Not in a timespan of less than several generations.
Right, and if Palestinians will have had all their aggression bred out of them, why give them any extra land? They will be satisfied with their lot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One person's sneering is another persons short, concise, cited answer.
No, one's person's sneering is sneering. You don't actually know much about Islam except what you learn from mainlining outrage online. Citing spicy quotes from holy books is Twitter-level, which is why you don't pile on in agreement when our resident Joo-posters are throwing around the one about goys being servants of Jews.
That passage from the Koran is literally cited in the Hamas Charter. It's article 7.
Yes, I'm aware. We aren't disagreeing about whether or not Hamas hates Jews and wants to wipe out Israel.
Then I don't understand your accusation of sneering, except to grant unearned charity to the obviously guilty party here. You acted like my bringing up that call to genocide was a complete non-sequitur. Like it's unfair or "sneering" to point out someone's publicly stated beliefs, openly expressed, enshrined in religion, government, media, and man on the street interviews.
I was referring to "they do it for the 72 virgins."
I can believe they act with motives that rise above the level of memes without granting "charity" to them.
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