naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29411 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.
The only thing complicated about Israel is the Jews are involved. And they matter. If it was two ethnics groups fighting in Africa they would have just ended on side and the issue ends. Syria was just as complicated. But nobody cares that much and Assad was allowed to do what was necessary to put down rebellion without the same concern about the majority impoverished Muslims.
Sometimes I feel like we don’t even frame these wars correctly. Everything boils down to Iran versus Arabs and not as much Jews versus Muslims when figuring out why America is backing one side versus the other. Because the US backing Assad the Christian rule (who was a little neoliberal) always seemed like a more natural ally for the US.
If oil deposits had been arranged differently and Iran had more oil than the Arabs then America a long time ago would have found a way to be friends with Iran. Iran would be friendly with Israel. And the Arabs would be the great evil.
Isn’t the Syrian conflict plenty high-profile? What with all the air strikes, sanctions, arms sales, chemical weapons investigations, and actual boots on the ground.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that we gave Assad a free hand. In the Arab Spring era, he stomped on a bunch of pro-democracy protests. That’s practically bait for getting the US involved.
Yes it was incredibly high-profile (especially for such a sluggish long running conflict). The OP seems to have made this up because it fits the arguments he wants to make.
Assad isn't Christian, the Alawites are a Shia Muslim religious group with some limited pre-Islamic elements. And America's support for Israel predates the current schism with Iran, which happened as a result of the Islamic Revolution that itself wasn't about Israel (it happened mainly because Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah into being less brutal with domestic Islamists, who could easily have been crushed but were instead in many cases released from prison, allowed to join the burgeoning student movement, start papers and opposition groups etc from early 1977).
Ok you are right on them being Shia. But I still think my point holds that we would be allies with them if Iran had more oil. Our backing of the Saudis seems to be the real thing that continues to keep Iran/America apart.
They also had some legitimate gripes that Iran barely benefitted from their oil and what they did get went to the elites. It improved before the revolution but their was a time when BP was paying an absurd 2% royalty.
It is right, and there is a reason Obama tried so hard to reorient US Middle Eastern policy towards a reconciliation with Iran. If US foreign policy was devised by an insular diplomatic corps who only had US interests in mind, this would have happened decades ago. Alas, there are certain groups who are very good at wielding the US foreign policy apparatus for the benefit of their ethnic group.
And yet, strangely, the vast majority of the voters who are members of the group in question voted for Obama. And against Trump. It's quite the conundrum.
Not really. There are very few American Jews and they aren't an important voting block. Majority of them are Americans first and foremost and become more assimilated every passing generation. The power of the Zionist lobby has nothing to do with their voting power, but their power to influence elite discourse and institutions.
That is not the point. The point is that if treating Iran as an enemy is truly about serving the interests of Jewish people, one would expect that Jewish voters would reward candidates who treat Iran as an enemy, and punish candidates who seek reconciliation with Iran. Yet, the opposite happened.
If you now want to distinguish between Zionists and Jewush people, fine. That is obviously true. But you made a claim about an ethnic group, and Zionists are not an ethnic group.
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 -
The only thing complicated about Israel is the Jews are involved. And they matter. If it was two ethnics groups fighting in Africa they would have just ended on side and the issue ends. Syria was just as complicated. But nobody cares that much and Assad was allowed to do what was necessary to put down rebellion without the same concern about the majority impoverished Muslims.
Sometimes I feel like we don’t even frame these wars correctly. Everything boils down to Iran versus Arabs and not as much Jews versus Muslims when figuring out why America is backing one side versus the other. Because the US backing Assad the Christian rule (who was a little neoliberal) always seemed like a more natural ally for the US.
If oil deposits had been arranged differently and Iran had more oil than the Arabs then America a long time ago would have found a way to be friends with Iran. Iran would be friendly with Israel. And the Arabs would be the great evil.
Isn’t the Syrian conflict plenty high-profile? What with all the air strikes, sanctions, arms sales, chemical weapons investigations, and actual boots on the ground.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that we gave Assad a free hand. In the Arab Spring era, he stomped on a bunch of pro-democracy protests. That’s practically bait for getting the US involved.
Yes it was incredibly high-profile (especially for such a sluggish long running conflict). The OP seems to have made this up because it fits the arguments he wants to make.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Assad isn't Christian, the Alawites are a Shia Muslim religious group with some limited pre-Islamic elements. And America's support for Israel predates the current schism with Iran, which happened as a result of the Islamic Revolution that itself wasn't about Israel (it happened mainly because Jimmy Carter pressured the Shah into being less brutal with domestic Islamists, who could easily have been crushed but were instead in many cases released from prison, allowed to join the burgeoning student movement, start papers and opposition groups etc from early 1977).
Ok you are right on them being Shia. But I still think my point holds that we would be allies with them if Iran had more oil. Our backing of the Saudis seems to be the real thing that continues to keep Iran/America apart.
They also had some legitimate gripes that Iran barely benefitted from their oil and what they did get went to the elites. It improved before the revolution but their was a time when BP was paying an absurd 2% royalty.
This says that Iran has the world's third largest proven oil reserves. Is it wrong?
It is right, and there is a reason Obama tried so hard to reorient US Middle Eastern policy towards a reconciliation with Iran. If US foreign policy was devised by an insular diplomatic corps who only had US interests in mind, this would have happened decades ago. Alas, there are certain groups who are very good at wielding the US foreign policy apparatus for the benefit of their ethnic group.
And yet, strangely, the vast majority of the voters who are members of the group in question voted for Obama. And against Trump. It's quite the conundrum.
Not really. There are very few American Jews and they aren't an important voting block. Majority of them are Americans first and foremost and become more assimilated every passing generation. The power of the Zionist lobby has nothing to do with their voting power, but their power to influence elite discourse and institutions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It says exactly what I said it said. The Arabs have more oil.
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