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.
- 1849
- 20
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
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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".
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:
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"
But without treating the Palestinians as second class in any way. And that basically can't be done.
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.
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.
This amounts to the state of Israel ceasing to exist and the state that remains in that place being hostile to Jews.
Yes, but only some leftists think that means it's false (or alternately, don't care).
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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".
No, I don't see how that's the case.
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