naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29413 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.
Why can't Palestinian civilians flee to Egypt across Gaza's southern border? What considerations or pressures (internal or external) prevent Egypt from granting entry now to Palestinian refugees?
Well, let’s say Egypt suddenly said anyone who wants to come can come. Ignoring the potential direct issues for Egypt, what might follow?
Israel would have (more of a) carte blanche to just indiscriminately whale on Gaza. After all, it would be easier to say that anyone who did not leave is a Hamas militant, or forced to stay by Hamas (so it’s Hamas who are responsible if they die)
It’s a fair assumption that anyone who left is never going to see their home again, unless Israel falls. Rest of the Arab world might hold Egypt partially liable for a new Nakba.
If sufficiently many leave, it would considerably advance the desired Israeli end state of a comfortable Jewish majority in the entire former
Mandatory Palestine, thus giving them impetus to formally annex it all and end the Palestinian dream for good.
Israel would have (more of a) carte blanche to just indiscriminately whale on Gaza. After all, it would be easier to say that anyone who did not leave is a Hamas militant, or forced to stay by Hamas (so it’s Hamas who are responsible if they die)
Prohibiting the exit of Palestinian civilians from Gaza because keeping these civilians in Gaza limits Israel's scope of military operation seems consistent with Israel's complaints about the use of Palestinian "human shields."
Rest of the Arab world might hold Egypt partially liable for a new Nakba.
It's hard for me to see the Arab world blaming Egypt for allowing refugees to exit a war zone. Many Palestinians were permitted to flee to Egypt in 1948. Does the Arab world hold Egypt partially liable for the original Nakba?
If sufficiently many [Palestinians] leave, it would considerably advance the desired Israeli end state of a comfortable Jewish majority in the entire former Mandatory Palestine.
Is "a Jewish majority in the entire former Mandatory Palestine" really the "desired Israeli end state"?
I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct or the most ethical choice for Egyptians, I was just trying to explain that there's an internal logic to it.
Many Palestinians were permitted to flee to Egypt in 1948. Does the Arab world hold Egypt partially liable for the original Nakba?
It would have been quite hard to do so in a situation where Egypt, and other Arab countries, were actively fighting against Israel. OTOH in current day numerous Arabs inside and outside Egypt already see the Egyptian government as the pawn of Israel and the West.
Is "a Jewish majority in the entire former Mandatory Palestine" really the "desired Israeli end state"?
I fail to see how it wouldn't be, especially for the Israeli Right, including Likud. They consistently talk of "Judea and Samaria" as a part of the Land of Israel, they expand settlements, they consistently repudiate any sort of a Palestinian state, they of course will absolutely not give up the idea of Israel as a Jewish state - what sort of an other end goal would there be?
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 -
Well, let’s say Egypt suddenly said anyone who wants to come can come. Ignoring the potential direct issues for Egypt, what might follow?
Israel would have (more of a) carte blanche to just indiscriminately whale on Gaza. After all, it would be easier to say that anyone who did not leave is a Hamas militant, or forced to stay by Hamas (so it’s Hamas who are responsible if they die)
It’s a fair assumption that anyone who left is never going to see their home again, unless Israel falls. Rest of the Arab world might hold Egypt partially liable for a new Nakba.
If sufficiently many leave, it would considerably advance the desired Israeli end state of a comfortable Jewish majority in the entire former Mandatory Palestine, thus giving them impetus to formally annex it all and end the Palestinian dream for good.
Prohibiting the exit of Palestinian civilians from Gaza because keeping these civilians in Gaza limits Israel's scope of military operation seems consistent with Israel's complaints about the use of Palestinian "human shields."
It's hard for me to see the Arab world blaming Egypt for allowing refugees to exit a war zone. Many Palestinians were permitted to flee to Egypt in 1948. Does the Arab world hold Egypt partially liable for the original Nakba?
Is "a Jewish majority in the entire former Mandatory Palestine" really the "desired Israeli end state"?
I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct or the most ethical choice for Egyptians, I was just trying to explain that there's an internal logic to it.
It would have been quite hard to do so in a situation where Egypt, and other Arab countries, were actively fighting against Israel. OTOH in current day numerous Arabs inside and outside Egypt already see the Egyptian government as the pawn of Israel and the West.
I fail to see how it wouldn't be, especially for the Israeli Right, including Likud. They consistently talk of "Judea and Samaria" as a part of the Land of Israel, they expand settlements, they consistently repudiate any sort of a Palestinian state, they of course will absolutely not give up the idea of Israel as a Jewish state - what sort of an other end goal would there be?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link