naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30318 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
This is a refreshed 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.
Jordan and Israel represent the two sides of the Middle Eastern coin as envisioned by the British orientalists of the early 20th century, whose role America eventually partially took over.
On one side were the Jews, mostly shtetl dwellers and assorted Levantine merchants, led by what was hoped to be a more civilized caste of Western European types, raised and educated in England and to a lesser extent France, who were first-rate supporters, much like the Scots, of Empire. Cecil Rhodes himself was, after all, an agent of the Rothschild family, and every early piece of lobbying by wealthy Anglo-French Jews for Israel was predicated on it being an outpost of Europe in the Orient.
The flipside of the coin was that many British and French aristos were themselves inheritors of a long tradition of orientalism, involving variously dashing Arab swordsmen, ancient desert customs, camels, the honor and nobility of a tribal culture, fanatic devotion to victory and God and so on. As the 19th century and early 20th centuries dragged on, the British were increasingly successful at having the heirs to various Middle Eastern monarchies sent to Eton and Sandhurst (quite a number still are). Jordan to some extent represents the epitome of this, the King is literally half British and descended from the colonial officer class on his mother’s side.
As the Middle East fell apart after Suez and the Americans realized the gravity of their mistake in not more vigorously opposing Nasser (which triggered a series of events that ultimately convinced the inhabitants of the region that they were once again in control of their destinies), the US tried, for various reasons, to shore up what was left.
On both sides of the coin though, the idea was that the respective ‘non-western’ aspects of the relevant cultures could be managed appropriately by Britain and eventually the US as successor state, and that it was best to keep the ‘good sort’ of person in charge, the kind who knew the etiquette at the right kind of Pall Mall club, or maybe at a DC charity gala. History may have disabused us of this notion, but it was a long time in the making.
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 -
Jordan and Israel represent the two sides of the Middle Eastern coin as envisioned by the British orientalists of the early 20th century, whose role America eventually partially took over.
On one side were the Jews, mostly shtetl dwellers and assorted Levantine merchants, led by what was hoped to be a more civilized caste of Western European types, raised and educated in England and to a lesser extent France, who were first-rate supporters, much like the Scots, of Empire. Cecil Rhodes himself was, after all, an agent of the Rothschild family, and every early piece of lobbying by wealthy Anglo-French Jews for Israel was predicated on it being an outpost of Europe in the Orient.
The flipside of the coin was that many British and French aristos were themselves inheritors of a long tradition of orientalism, involving variously dashing Arab swordsmen, ancient desert customs, camels, the honor and nobility of a tribal culture, fanatic devotion to victory and God and so on. As the 19th century and early 20th centuries dragged on, the British were increasingly successful at having the heirs to various Middle Eastern monarchies sent to Eton and Sandhurst (quite a number still are). Jordan to some extent represents the epitome of this, the King is literally half British and descended from the colonial officer class on his mother’s side.
As the Middle East fell apart after Suez and the Americans realized the gravity of their mistake in not more vigorously opposing Nasser (which triggered a series of events that ultimately convinced the inhabitants of the region that they were once again in control of their destinies), the US tried, for various reasons, to shore up what was left.
On both sides of the coin though, the idea was that the respective ‘non-western’ aspects of the relevant cultures could be managed appropriately by Britain and eventually the US as successor state, and that it was best to keep the ‘good sort’ of person in charge, the kind who knew the etiquette at the right kind of Pall Mall club, or maybe at a DC charity gala. History may have disabused us of this notion, but it was a long time in the making.
More options
Context Copy link