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.
I have also come across a bit of speculation that IDF leadership knows that this will turn into a massive bloodbath and fiasco and they are delaying against the wishes of the politicians and trying to work out alternatives to an invasion. Sounds like a sensible scenario to me.
The whole of Israel knows that they will be blamed for everything that happens. A fat guy has a heart attack 12 miles from a place the IDF conducted a raid. Israels fault. Etc. Hamas houses most of its weapons and operatives in schools, mosques, hospitals, etc. So its basically a long debate for the IDF whether they want to be even mildly effective in their response and have to defend themselves in front of antisemites at the Hague, or if there is another means of resolving the situation.
If this was 1833, there wouldn't be a single Gazan alive by Christmas. And this would be just.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
anti_dan 1yr ago
But this isn't 1833. And I don't mean in the sense of the moral fads turning sour on military might, I mean in the sense that we have explosives and small arms that make urban combat, even with air support and artillery, a protracted gruesome horror for everyone involved.
Blood feuds have a way of hardening the heart, but I would be surprised if the IDF is cheery at the perspective of getting shot at from a million angles, dodging VBIEDs, collapsing buildings and your own ordinance to the tune of screams of women and children getting melted alive by Willie Pete.
You stated a lot of reasons it should be easier for Israel to be rid of Gaza permanently. Their ability to do what Rome did to Carthage is orders of magnitude greater.
Do they need "boots on the ground" in that sort of conflict though? Couldn't they just bomb and shell every square foot until there's effectively no one and nothing left? Of course, it isn't that sort of conflict (yet).
Again, If it were me I'd declare a siege, cut the water, cut the power, mine the harbor. Seige ends when all the hostages have been safely returned.
And pictures of poor starving Palestinian babies are show on the news channels in the US and Europe every night, and there's trade sanctions and the US cuts off military aid.
You say that, and I say that, but the media won't say that and the normies don't think that way (unless they're told to). They'll see starving Palestinian babies, be told Israel is causing it, and blame Israel. If you give them a reason Israel is causing it, they'll tell you the babies aren't responsible and how can you punish them for the sins of Hamas, you monster. They'll point out that most Palestinians really don't have any control over Hamas (eliding the point that most of them would not act differently if they could). And if you argue more it'll just be Israel! Starving! Babies!
Oh, and if you point out the pictures of starving babies are actually from a 1972 Sally Struthers commercial, they'll call you a liar and a monster and stop speaking with you.
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 -
I have also come across a bit of speculation that IDF leadership knows that this will turn into a massive bloodbath and fiasco and they are delaying against the wishes of the politicians and trying to work out alternatives to an invasion. Sounds like a sensible scenario to me.
The whole of Israel knows that they will be blamed for everything that happens. A fat guy has a heart attack 12 miles from a place the IDF conducted a raid. Israels fault. Etc. Hamas houses most of its weapons and operatives in schools, mosques, hospitals, etc. So its basically a long debate for the IDF whether they want to be even mildly effective in their response and have to defend themselves in front of antisemites at the Hague, or if there is another means of resolving the situation.
If this was 1833, there wouldn't be a single Gazan alive by Christmas. And this would be just.
But this isn't 1833. And I don't mean in the sense of the moral fads turning sour on military might, I mean in the sense that we have explosives and small arms that make urban combat, even with air support and artillery, a protracted gruesome horror for everyone involved.
Blood feuds have a way of hardening the heart, but I would be surprised if the IDF is cheery at the perspective of getting shot at from a million angles, dodging VBIEDs, collapsing buildings and your own ordinance to the tune of screams of women and children getting melted alive by Willie Pete.
You stated a lot of reasons it should be easier for Israel to be rid of Gaza permanently. Their ability to do what Rome did to Carthage is orders of magnitude greater.
More options
Context Copy link
Do they need "boots on the ground" in that sort of conflict though? Couldn't they just bomb and shell every square foot until there's effectively no one and nothing left? Of course, it isn't that sort of conflict (yet).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Again, If it were me I'd declare a siege, cut the water, cut the power, mine the harbor. Seige ends when all the hostages have been safely returned.
And pictures of poor starving Palestinian babies are show on the news channels in the US and Europe every night, and there's trade sanctions and the US cuts off military aid.
What of them?
The Palestinians could end their suffering at any time by releasing the Hostages.
You say that, and I say that, but the media won't say that and the normies don't think that way (unless they're told to). They'll see starving Palestinian babies, be told Israel is causing it, and blame Israel. If you give them a reason Israel is causing it, they'll tell you the babies aren't responsible and how can you punish them for the sins of Hamas, you monster. They'll point out that most Palestinians really don't have any control over Hamas (eliding the point that most of them would not act differently if they could). And if you argue more it'll just be Israel! Starving! Babies!
Oh, and if you point out the pictures of starving babies are actually from a 1972 Sally Struthers commercial, they'll call you a liar and a monster and stop speaking with you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link