site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29520 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.

The statute of limitations in common law, in nearly all cases, only runs out if no redress is being pursued. You can't just stall on a lawsuit that's been filed against you for years, then claim that it has gone stale. As long as the lawsuit is filed on time, the SoL argument is moot.

The Palestinians haven't exactly let this drop. Indeed, one can argue the extent to which they have had any opportunity to let it drop if they had wanted to. So if this were a lawsuit, no statute of limitations would apply.

The SoL concept probably applies better to internal minorities like amerindians or ADoS; or to long settled controversies like Greater Hungary.

The statute of limitations in common law, in nearly all cases, only runs out if no redress is being pursued.

I'm pretty sure that Jewish prayers have included "next year in Jerusalem" and the hope to return to Israel for centuries.

Exactly. If it can't be extinguished in 1800 years in exile, it certainly isn't extinguished in 80.

You have to be dispossessed from something you actually own before you get to keep a claim going. If the Jews have an 1800 year claim, that negates the claim of the Palestinians from while they were still living there. If they don't have a valid claim from when they were still living there, they have nothing they can keep going for 80 years.

...I don't really see how that works.

The senior claim is superior. If Israel's 1720-year claim was valid at the time, the newer Palestinian claim cannot have ever been.

The comparison isn’t exactly one for one since common law has a sovereign. The question is where there is no sovereign should we import concepts like SoL in terms of morality. And I think the answer is yes — we are probably into fourth generation Israelis at this point.

It doesn’t matter if Palestine has “contested” the issue (assuming the land was rightfully Palestinian land in the first place). You are basically creating a situation where you will cause a massive amount of short term harm (by moving out the fourth generation Israeli) while also encouraging states to utterly quash any other “claimants” (because if they shut up because they are decimated — in the figurative sense — they lose their claim).

I think the logic of things like AP and SoL is at some point the past needs to be the past. That logic can still work even when there is no sovereign.

I think until such time as Israelis stop kvetching to Germans about the Holocaust, Palestinians can be permitted to protest their subsequent territorial expropriation.

Are Israelis kvetching at Germans any more? My impression was that in the current year most of the people kvetching to Germans about the Holocaust are Jewish-American lawyers looking for a payoff.

It's mostly Germans and "Germans" telling other Germans that they're insufficiently penitent.

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