site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29415 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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Feelings of inferiority

By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

From Industrial Society and Its Future.

It never struck me until now but effectively Uncle Ted is saying the left has merely embraced slave morality to the point they don’t even know it.

He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

But the same mindset did not hate the USSR when they were strong and successful.

An easier explanation is "The enemy of my enemy's friend is my friend (defeasibly)." It's not that leftists have any particular admiration for the Palestinians, Muslims, or whatever. Instead, their opposition to Israel is because Israel is an American ally, and America is seen as the enemy by modern leftists. It's the same with Putin and Ukraine: the average leftist does not like Putin, but they dislike Ukraine, because they see it as a friend of America.

If one wanted to continue the same train of thought, which I personally don't share, they might argue that all the communists who stopped supporting Soviet Union and became anarchists, Trotskyists, Maoists, New Left etc. did so because Soviet Union was strong and successful.

did so because Soviet Union was strong and successful.

The greatest losses in support came when it stopped looking strong and successful (Brezhnev era) no ?

I'm not actually sure what the exact point would be. A lot of people would have at least seen the Soviet Union as strong right to the very end. However, there was a steady drip of people from a pro-Soviet left to various anti-Soviet left positions even before that, and these were often connected to open displays of strength (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968 etc.)

A lot of people would have at least seen the Soviet Union

Who ? Soviets were clearly stagnating. It was obvious when despite what looked like an advantage in launches, they fell behind, didn't even manage to send people to the moon, their economy was growing far slower, etc..

Having your satellite states break with your political program so that you have to crush them militarily doesn't look strong, it looks weak. Not as weak as open defiance would have been though.

Soviets were clearly stagnating in hindsight, but at the time? Direct comparisons were few and far between, and the people who had a chance to make them certainly seemed surprised enough.

"Even the Politburo doesn't have this choice. Not even Mr. Gorbachev," [Yeltsin] said. When he was told through his interpreter that there were thousands of items in the store for sale he didn't believe it. He had even thought that the store was staged, a show for him.

...

He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, "there would be a revolution."

The Soviets didn't even manage to send people to the moon, but until they were at the brink of dissolution they also didn't even admit they had been trying. Walter Cronkite even bought the Soviet line, ''It turned out there had never been a race to the Moon.'' The fact that Soviet lunar lander hardware and a Saturn-V-scale launcher had ever existed was only revealed decades later, by accident.

Soviets were clearly stagnating in hindsight, but at the time? Direct comparisons were few and far between, and the people who had a chance to make them certainly seemed surprised enough.

Mainstream opinion didn't want them to stagnate, but it's usually shit and honestly, wasn't anyone who ever visited convinced of that ?

Warsaw Pact countries couldn't even provide cars to people who wanted them, couldn't keep facades of buildings looking reasonably good, couldn't provide the goods people wanted to buy.

If you compared 1970s lifestyles and prosperity in Austria vs Czechoslovakia, with both countries starting from basically the same starting line, it'd have been undeniable communism wasn't working well.

This wasn't as obvious before 1970, but after ? Famously, a demographer predicted the dissolution of USSR based mostly on health data.

Todd deduced that the Soviet Union had stagnated in the 1970s and was falling behind not only the West but its own Eastern European satellite states economically. In addition to this, low birth rates, a rising suicide rate, and worker discontent all were factors in an increasingly low level of productivity in the economy. Todd also predicted that poorly carried-out political and economic reforms would lead to a break-up of the Soviet Union with non-Russian republics seceding.

In the case of the anarchists and the Trotskyists, this requires ignoring a lot of what they said, without a clear justification.

Maoists did support the Soviet Union until Mao didn't. They also rejected China as soon as it stopped being Maoist and while it was still far from being a superpower, suggesting that ideology really was their big motivator.

This is a convenient explanation, but one should always be skeptical of any description of their enemies that boils down to "they're jealous". It's not impossible, but you're gonna miss a lot. For all that leftists do this, it should be considered that they expect better of Western civilization. In the same vein that an adult is held to different standards vs. children, the social critic holds his society to be able to do better than this enemies.

There is obviously a debate to be had over whether their standards are perfect or not, but you do yourself a disservice if you boil your opponent's arguments down to "seethe more".

For all that leftists do this, it should be considered that they expect better of Western civilization. In the same vein that an adult is held to different standards vs. children, the social critic holds his society to be able to do better than this enemies.

People do not, in general, believe children should have all the same rights and privileges as adults. The pro-Palestinian left at the same time argues that the Palestinians deserve self-determination and a homeland and to be treated as a nation, but at the same time holds them to no standards at all. This is not "I hold my ingroup to higher standards"; you see that more often from conservatives. It's "I favor the Palestinian cause, therefore whatever they do is OK and whatever Israel does is wrong".

People do not, in general, believe children should have all the same rights and privileges as adults.

This isn't totally accurate. Freddie DeBoer argues that Israel is the more powerful of the two, so it has the moral obligation to do better and fix the situation. Palestine can't, Israel won't, or so it goes. I don't think he's lying when he says there are leftists who think like him.

Obviously, the people mentioned in the top-level comment are the ones that rile people up. The people who say that no Israeli is a civilian, that all settlers are inherently oppressors, etc. These people are largely unserious in how they approach the question, but it's worth noting that there is no incoherence in noting two things:

  1. Israel's colonization of Palestinian land is wrong.
  2. Hamas is an immoral organization

and focusing solely on 1. Decolonization and liberation of colonies may result is great acts of tragedy, but there is a strong case to be made that it is still better to grant people self-rule and independence.

Scott Alexander made an excellent point in that people in general weight things by their connection in a person's mind to other things. So Palestine links to decolonization links to anti-fascism, etc. So they will immediately load a frame of mind that Hamas is obviously moral to do those things, because it links to "Free Palestine". Thus the need to defend the immoral things done in the name of that freedom.

This is hardly an original or flattering take, but "leftists are people and people are irrational" is more accurate than "leftists hate the West and success"

This isn't totally accurate. Freddie DeBoer argues that Israel is the more powerful of the two, so it has the moral obligation to do better and fix the situation.

But without treating the Palestinians as second class in any way. And that basically can't be done.

and focusing solely on 1. Decolonization and liberation of colonies may result is great acts of tragedy, but there is a strong case to be made that it is still better to grant people self-rule and independence.

If you believe that "Israel's colonization of Palestinian land is wrong" and should be corrected, it follows from this that you're in favor of the state of Israel ceasing to exist and the Jews all either going someplace else or also ceasing to exist. This is obviously not something the state of Israel will ever agree to, so from their perspective, if you believe this you are just an irreconcilable enemy.

But without treating the Palestinians as second class in any way. And that basically can't be done.

Actually, that's totally possible. It means that Israel will have to accept becoming a more diverse and multicultural state as opposed to an ethnostate. Demanding that countries stop being racist ethnostates that use genetic testing to determine citizenship and surreptitiously administer contraceptives to africans isn't exactly inconsistent with leftist politics. Any sort of claim that this would constitute a genocide of the jews or even be bad for them in any way runs completely counter to leftist messaging - you're just not going to be able to convince a BLM/La Raza activist that allowing brown people into your society means destroying it as opposed to enriching it with vibrant diversity and a plurality of viewpoints. The mass rapes committed by islamic immigrants in western countries weren't enough to change their mind, so I doubt Hamas doing a small fraction of that to Israel would either.

It means that Israel will have to accept becoming a more diverse and multicultural state as opposed to an ethnostate.

This amounts to the state of Israel ceasing to exist and the state that remains in that place being hostile to Jews.

Any sort of claim that this would constitute a genocide of the jews or even be bad for them in any way runs completely counter to leftist messaging

Yes, but only some leftists think that means it's false (or alternately, don't care).

This amounts to the state of Israel ceasing to exist and the state that remains in that place being hostile to Jews.

If you're an ethnonationalist, yes. We're talking about left wing politics here - Israel is an idea, and claiming that your genes determine your nation is explicitly verboten on the left.

Yes, but only some leftists think that means it's false (or alternately, don't care).

I personally think that it would be terrible for the jews - but they explicitly advocate for sending their "undesirables" to my nation (https://www.jpost.com/diplomacy-and-politics/danny-danon-send-african-migrants-to-australia), so I don't think there's anything wrong with suggesting the same to them.

Serious leftists are going to probably talk about a two-state solution. No end to Israel, but it would have to roll back to some historical borders. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Israel can't do this w/o treating Palestinians as second-class.

Two state solution goes like this:

1) Two states are set up

2) Arab state attacks Israel

3) Israel fights back, wins, we're back where we started.

or

3) Israel loses, Jews are expelled or killed.

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Israel can't do this w/o treating Palestinians as second-class.

If Israel's obligation to "fix the situation" derives from it being the more powerful of the two, it will have to override the wishes of the Palestinians, treating them as lesser. If they do not do that, they cannot take advantage of being more powerful.

We're not back to where we started. One of the biggest issues other nations and people have with Israel is its encroachment on and control over Palestinian land and whatnot. A two-state solution would go a long way to neutering this complaint about it. Moreover, Israel would still be a military powerhouse with backing from the US of all allies. War might be inevitable, but military gear tends to be expensive, and it's not like Israel can't innovate to use low-cost solutions either.

War leaves a sour taste in people's mouths, and "Israel is our neighbor that we hate" generates far less antagonism than "Israel is the active oppressor of our people".

If Israel's obligation to "fix the situation" derives from it being the more powerful of the two, it will have to override the wishes of the Palestinians, treating them as lesser. If they do not do that, they cannot take advantage of being more powerful.

No, I don't see how that's the case.

This. When 9/11 happened, it was abundantly clear to me that the hijackers were villains, fullstop. But it bothered me more when the Bush administration used every excuse in the book afterward to justify invading not one, but two countries, though neither seemed to hold up under scrutiny. Evil people doing evil is bad and tragic, but not that weird. The alleged good-guys turning into trigger-happy invaders, though, is almost like betrayal.

Please notice that I have not expressed any opinions on Israel Vs Palestine, here. Just citing an example of the explanation for disproportionate judgment.

The attack of Afghanistan was just. The occupation was dumb.

What is this place?

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.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats