site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29382 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.

20
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Richard Hanania has already suggested it would be less trouble for the Palestinians to be expelled to Europe, I certainly wouldn't rule it out. If a regional war breaks out then there is a 100% chance of Europe being forced to take mass refugees.

Richard Hanania is incompetent Twitterati with idiotic takes on all topics familiar to me.

(not specialist on everything, maybe coincidentally he is wrong only on topics familiar to me and correct on everything else)

there is a 100% chance of Europe being forced to take mass refugees.

How they would get there? Teleport? Who would accept them?

Isn’t Richard literally a Palestinian? Why is Keith accusing him of being a traitor by trying to secure his people passage to Europe?

I was surprised to find out he’s not Jewish, with that last name. Turns out he’s from a christian Arab family. In that case, his people were already cleansed from Gaza. The people still in Gaza are his people’s killers.

I’ve posted before about Indians being basically the biggest HBD type in the UK. White people aren’t able to express those opinions in the west. It’s the fringe white adjacent who get to (like Ramaswany too).

For Keith, supporting the ethnic cleansing of your people from your ancestral homeland is a betrayal on principle. i.e. if Ireland became overrun with Arabs and things came to a head, I don't think Keith would advocate for ethnically cleansing the Irish to the United States even if that had a higher standard of living and more political rights.

I don't care about Richard's betrayal of the Palestinians, I care about his betrayal of Europe, not that he necessarily owes any loyalty to Europeans. But it shows where his priorities lie when he talks about "less trouble."

For Keith, supporting the ethnic cleansing of your people from your ancestral homeland is a betrayal on principle. i.e. if Ireland was overrun

What if the Irish were by far the weaker party and were liable to being completely destroyed imminently? Does Keith think it better to die at home than live in diaspora? If he does, I don’t know that he can fault others too much for disagreeing with him - at least it’s a matter of debate.

If the Arabs completely blockaded and turned off the food and water to the Irish, I think Keith would consider it a betrayal to say "good idea on that blockade, that's going to force the Irish away from Ireland finally and that will cause less trouble." Even if they were the weaker party.

If the issue for Palestinians is that they want to be free of rule by jews, moving to Europe is not a solution. Most if not all European countries have anti-antisemitism laws and anti-islam laws. While Palestinians would necessarily be more materially comfortable in Europe or almost anywhere else, they could never obtain the weapons and training readily available at home if they aspire to fight jewish rule.

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


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats