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.
Note that "Hamas" did not decide to do anything; rather, certain leaders of Hamas did. Those who made the decision to launch this attack are almost certainly acting in their own interests. The decision was probably driven in part by internal politics, either between Hamas and its political rivals, or among factions within Hamas. That is hardly an unusual phenomenon (see the Falklands War). Note than "driven by internal politics" does not preclude the possibility that Iran played an important role, given that Hamas relies on Iran for some of its funding, which like all governing organizations Hamas uses to purchase legitimacy (whether in the form of public services or in the form of striking Israel).
That's a good thing to remember in the general case, but it's also relevant to look at the necessary number of people involved in this sort of maneuvers, either directly in terms of men on the scene, and indirectly in terms of immediate support. Even with fairly generous assumptions regarding compartmentalization, it's extremely likely that both the majority of Hamas leadership and literally tens of thousands of individual members were involved.
That both changes how leaders make decisions (cfe more formal example), but it also blends the lines between decisions made by individuals and by organizations.
There are actually reports coming out that only a small part of the military leadership planned this attack and was aware of it and not even the political leaders of Hamas were aware. And other militant groups were only informed moments before the action and joined in an impromptu manner. Obviously impossible to know for sure but this would make much sense since otherwise it would be impossible to keep this secret.
Yes, but I think you are conflating two different questions: 1) why entities employ political violence; and 2) why individuals go along / participate in political violence / join politically violent organizations. Compare chapters 3 and six here
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 -
Note that "Hamas" did not decide to do anything; rather, certain leaders of Hamas did. Those who made the decision to launch this attack are almost certainly acting in their own interests. The decision was probably driven in part by internal politics, either between Hamas and its political rivals, or among factions within Hamas. That is hardly an unusual phenomenon (see the Falklands War). Note than "driven by internal politics" does not preclude the possibility that Iran played an important role, given that Hamas relies on Iran for some of its funding, which like all governing organizations Hamas uses to purchase legitimacy (whether in the form of public services or in the form of striking Israel).
That's a good thing to remember in the general case, but it's also relevant to look at the necessary number of people involved in this sort of maneuvers, either directly in terms of men on the scene, and indirectly in terms of immediate support. Even with fairly generous assumptions regarding compartmentalization, it's extremely likely that both the majority of Hamas leadership and literally tens of thousands of individual members were involved.
That both changes how leaders make decisions (cfe more formal example), but it also blends the lines between decisions made by individuals and by organizations.
There are actually reports coming out that only a small part of the military leadership planned this attack and was aware of it and not even the political leaders of Hamas were aware. And other militant groups were only informed moments before the action and joined in an impromptu manner. Obviously impossible to know for sure but this would make much sense since otherwise it would be impossible to keep this secret.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but I think you are conflating two different questions: 1) why entities employ political violence; and 2) why individuals go along / participate in political violence / join politically violent organizations. Compare chapters 3 and six here
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link