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.
This is exactly what I am talking about. It devolves into a silly and extremely dishonest game of definitions. See, it is not an open prison, it is just a double whammy tight "land border" with a "blockade" on the sea side. Just like what Canada and the US have! And then of course there is always the attempt to justify why Gazans deserve to be imprisoned in this totally-not-open-air-prison because they elected bad people.
So Israel forced those people (who aren't usually actually from Gaza, but typically from areas south of what is now Israel, and have families all over Israel and West Bank) to emigrate to refugee camps in Gaza. And then made their exit illegal and dependent on rarely obtained "permits" that they can get for sustained good behavior. And also convinced Egypt through a combination of US bribery and regime self-interest arguments, to do the same. And also destroyed their only airport and closed down the sea access as well because it is totally not a prison, see, they are just not allowed to leave.
The fact that there were extra steps and justifications to Gaza becoming an open air prison, doesn't change the fact that it is now an open air prison.
This is exactly what I am talking about. It devolves into a silly and extremely dishonest game of definitions.
Well, yes, using pejoratives with different meanings as motte-and-baily arguments is silly and dishonest. This is part of why the pro-Palestinians regularly shoot their cause in the foot by rhetorical over-reach.
You asked how someone could disagree with a pejorative using direct and honest argument. The most direct and honest argument is that the pejorative you use doesn't mean what you think it means if you think it accurately applies.
If you don't think it accurately applies, the charge of silly dishonesty may indeed apply, but not from the people point to word meaning.
See, it is not an open prison, it is just a double whammy tight "land border" with a "blockade" on the sea side. Just like what Canada and the US have!
This, however, would be dishonest, because this was not the point made. The point made wasn't Gaza and the other examples were alike- the point was that the reason they were not alike isn't the nature of the land boundary, but the sea boundary. There was even a specific word describing it that you seem disinclined to use.
Blockade. Which is a shame to neglect, because blockades are recognized as acts of war for a reason. Blockades can be tied to many ruinous impacts, acts of aggression, indiscriminate impacts, and so on. Not a nice word, blockade.
But... it doesn't work as well as the claim as 'prison', because it doesn't have the same connotations of total control of the individual that the word 'prison' does. Even as an act of war, a war is a conflict between two sides, which implicitly acknowledges mutual agency and even potentially appropriateness, whereas prisons can be argued to be unilateral impositions at no-fault of the subjected faction. If Israel is running a prison, the argument can be made that imprisonment is unjust, doesn't follow the principles of justice, and the entire project illegitimate. If Israel is acknowledged as running a blockade, the argument context shifts to having to explain why, which may end up conceding that the conditions that are acknowledged as occasionally justifying blockades- terrible as they are- apply.
So, of course, the pro-Palestinian narratives ignore the blockade, unless needed to be acknowledged in technical terms to maintain the prison metaphor.
So Israel forced those people (who aren't usually actually from Gaza, but typically from areas south of what is now Israel, and have families all over Israel and West Bank) to emigrate to refugee camps in Gaza.
The Arabs lost a war they intended to have existential stakes for the Israelis, yes. Multiple wars, even.
This does not make it a prison. It establishes it as a refugee camp.
And then made their exit illegal and dependent on rarely obtained "permits" that they can get for sustained good behavior.
The Gazans continued such attempts at war that uncontrolled access would have obvious and natural follow-on effects for continuing and expanding the war-potential, yes. There was a point where Gaza would- accurately- be described as occupied.
This does not make it a prison. This made it an occupation state, as long as the occupiers remain in place. Which stopped not-quite two decades ago.
And also convinced Egypt through a combination of US bribery and regime self-interest arguments, to do the same.
The Palestinians really mucked it up here, yes. Basic asymmetric conflict theory is to maintain your patron-networks and support zones without making yourself more trouble than you're worth. The Palestinians failed, both in their chosen alignments and in not enforcing displine on their movement / tolerating autonomous actors who threatened their backers. Making it in your mutually-hating neighbors' self-interest to cooperate against you is a terrible own-goal. (Or would it be dark-humor as own-gaol?)
Regardless, this (still) does not make it a prison. This makes it diplomatically isolated from its neighbors.
And also destroyed their only airport and closed down the sea access as well because it is totally not a prison, see, they are just not allowed to leave.
And here we go back to that there's a word for this that isn't prison: the word is blockade.
At no point in the summarization of several decades did you describe what- in any other context- would be recognized as not-a-prison. What you described was a refugee camp from the losing side of a war, that was subjected to an occupation state, which lost it's external patrons and made itself a security threat to all its neighbors, and which after being released from occupatation continued to allow violence until it was instead blockading.
None of this is nice. None of this is beneficient. But it is a much more honest and direct point than claiming the Gazans have been imprisoned.
The fact that there were extra steps and justifications to Gaza becoming an open air prison, doesn't change the fact that it is now an open air prison.
The point that it is not an open-air prison is what makes the claim a pejorative rather than a fact.
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 -
This is exactly what I am talking about. It devolves into a silly and extremely dishonest game of definitions. See, it is not an open prison, it is just a double whammy tight "land border" with a "blockade" on the sea side. Just like what Canada and the US have! And then of course there is always the attempt to justify why Gazans deserve to be imprisoned in this totally-not-open-air-prison because they elected bad people.
So Israel forced those people (who aren't usually actually from Gaza, but typically from areas south of what is now Israel, and have families all over Israel and West Bank) to emigrate to refugee camps in Gaza. And then made their exit illegal and dependent on rarely obtained "permits" that they can get for sustained good behavior. And also convinced Egypt through a combination of US bribery and regime self-interest arguments, to do the same. And also destroyed their only airport and closed down the sea access as well because it is totally not a prison, see, they are just not allowed to leave.
The fact that there were extra steps and justifications to Gaza becoming an open air prison, doesn't change the fact that it is now an open air prison.
Well, yes, using pejoratives with different meanings as motte-and-baily arguments is silly and dishonest. This is part of why the pro-Palestinians regularly shoot their cause in the foot by rhetorical over-reach.
You asked how someone could disagree with a pejorative using direct and honest argument. The most direct and honest argument is that the pejorative you use doesn't mean what you think it means if you think it accurately applies.
If you don't think it accurately applies, the charge of silly dishonesty may indeed apply, but not from the people point to word meaning.
This, however, would be dishonest, because this was not the point made. The point made wasn't Gaza and the other examples were alike- the point was that the reason they were not alike isn't the nature of the land boundary, but the sea boundary. There was even a specific word describing it that you seem disinclined to use.
Blockade. Which is a shame to neglect, because blockades are recognized as acts of war for a reason. Blockades can be tied to many ruinous impacts, acts of aggression, indiscriminate impacts, and so on. Not a nice word, blockade.
But... it doesn't work as well as the claim as 'prison', because it doesn't have the same connotations of total control of the individual that the word 'prison' does. Even as an act of war, a war is a conflict between two sides, which implicitly acknowledges mutual agency and even potentially appropriateness, whereas prisons can be argued to be unilateral impositions at no-fault of the subjected faction. If Israel is running a prison, the argument can be made that imprisonment is unjust, doesn't follow the principles of justice, and the entire project illegitimate. If Israel is acknowledged as running a blockade, the argument context shifts to having to explain why, which may end up conceding that the conditions that are acknowledged as occasionally justifying blockades- terrible as they are- apply.
So, of course, the pro-Palestinian narratives ignore the blockade, unless needed to be acknowledged in technical terms to maintain the prison metaphor.
The Arabs lost a war they intended to have existential stakes for the Israelis, yes. Multiple wars, even.
This does not make it a prison. It establishes it as a refugee camp.
The Gazans continued such attempts at war that uncontrolled access would have obvious and natural follow-on effects for continuing and expanding the war-potential, yes. There was a point where Gaza would- accurately- be described as occupied.
This does not make it a prison. This made it an occupation state, as long as the occupiers remain in place. Which stopped not-quite two decades ago.
The Palestinians really mucked it up here, yes. Basic asymmetric conflict theory is to maintain your patron-networks and support zones without making yourself more trouble than you're worth. The Palestinians failed, both in their chosen alignments and in not enforcing displine on their movement / tolerating autonomous actors who threatened their backers. Making it in your mutually-hating neighbors' self-interest to cooperate against you is a terrible own-goal. (Or would it be dark-humor as own-gaol?)
Regardless, this (still) does not make it a prison. This makes it diplomatically isolated from its neighbors.
And here we go back to that there's a word for this that isn't prison: the word is blockade.
At no point in the summarization of several decades did you describe what- in any other context- would be recognized as not-a-prison. What you described was a refugee camp from the losing side of a war, that was subjected to an occupation state, which lost it's external patrons and made itself a security threat to all its neighbors, and which after being released from occupatation continued to allow violence until it was instead blockading.
None of this is nice. None of this is beneficient. But it is a much more honest and direct point than claiming the Gazans have been imprisoned.
The point that it is not an open-air prison is what makes the claim a pejorative rather than a fact.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link