naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29820 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.
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.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
drmanhattan16 1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
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.
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 -
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