site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29411 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.

No one actually knows anything about this stuff. It's all just conjecture. Healthy skepticism would seem like the default mode.

But even if Israeli did provide clandestine resources to Hamas 35 years ago, how does that relate to today?

Overall, the idea that Israel is responsible for Hamas would be similar to the idea that the Winklevoss twins created Facebook.

But even if Israeli did provide clandestine resources to Hamas 35 years ago, how does that relate to today?

This is quite a take.

In any case, we know that half that time ago Israel refused Fatah's request for support against the takeover of Gaza by Hamas.

Diskin told the American envoy that although Fatah was desperate, its leadership was behaving as would be expected of people faced with such a difficult situation. He told Jones that Fatah had thus turned to Israel for help in attack Hamas, which he termed a new and unprecedented development in Jerusalem's relations with the Palestinian Authority. "They are approaching a zero-sum situation, and yet they ask us to attack Hamas," Diskin said. "This is a new development. We have never seen this before. They are desperate." Diskin is also cited opposing a U.S. proposal to supply ammunition and weapons to Fatah, fearful that Hamas might get its hands on them instead. Diskin went on to share with Jones sensitive details relating to the cooperation between the Shin Bet and the Palestinian security and intelligence forces in the West Bank. Palestinian security was sharing "almost all the intelligence that it collects" with Israel," Diskin told Jones. "They understand that Israel's security is central to their survival in the struggle with Hamas in the West Bank," he said, according to the cable.

The cable also exposes Diskin's concern that Abbas had begun to pose as a problem for Israel. "He's a paradox. He cannot function and do anything. Why is Fatah failing? Because Abbas has become the 'good guy' whom everyone is trying to do everything for in order to keep him alive. "He knows he is weak and that he has failed ... to rehabilitate Fatah. He did not start to take any action when he had the chance in 2004. Instead of choosing to be the leader for Fatah, he chose to be a national leader for all Palestinians," Diskin said, according to the cable. A few days after the meeting with Diskin, when the clashes in Gaza had reached their peaks on June 12, Jones met Israel's then-Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin. In the cable sent to Washington, Jones said that Yadlin had been quite satisfied with Hamas' seizure of the Gaza Strip. If Hamas managed to take complete control then the Israel Defense Forces would be able to relate to Gaza as a hostile territory and stop looking at the militant group as an undiplomatic player, Yadlin apparently told Jones. A few weeks later, Israel's cabinet indeed reached the decision to relate to Gaza as a hostile territory. A year and a half before Israel took offensive of the Gaza Strip in Operation Cast Lead, Yadlin referred to the territory as the fourth most hostile place in the world – following Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

You know, I like this situation for how it exposes the vileness of people. The US sometimes deposes hostile leaders in its growing sphere of influence, and is content to leave sycophants in charge; charitably, it even has some compunctions to have those sycophants not be utterly psychopathic. Israel, however, plays by a harsher rulebook: it encourages the whole opposing people to fall into extremism, to then be justified in their dehumanization. And what do we get? Buck-broken power worshippers nodding approvingly: «civilization is entitled to remove barbarism».

Some light unto the nations. Gamma rays probably.

Is it vile to refuse help to your sworn enemy? Assuming they did help, would the world recognize, and palestinians be grateful for their generosity?

Which sworn enemy?

Fatah?

This is purely of historical interest: it has pretty much no bearing on what Israel, Hamas, or their international allies can or should do (aside from encouraging a general rejection of clever clandestine activities). My main complaint about the sources I had found is because they were primarily interested in scoring points against Israel, so I approach it with skepticism but still do care about the history (and do enjoy keeping a collection of government fuckups).

I honestly think you can just ignore it. People still talk about rumored CIA activity in Iran and Congo in the 1950s as the reason those countries still suck today. It's nuclear grade cope and not worth considering.

If Kermit Roosevelt can take a suitcase full of cash into Iran in the 1950s and force them to overthrow their democratic leader (not actually democratic by the way, but whatever), what does that say about Iranians? Why are they so weak? Why don't they have any agency at all? It's all so stupid. The people who would blame the current situation on trivial (or even non-existent) events that happened decades ago are in fantasy land and should be treated as such.

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