naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30264 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.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
1yr ago·Edited 1yr ago
Surely all the attempts at codifying a two state demarcation that have since been soundly violated should count for something in defining what is and isn't "Palestinian land". Leaving again, the blood feud aside.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
AshLael 1yr ago
Well they did sign those agreements. Given that does it matter what they really think?
Of course both sides would like the whole of Palestine for themselves and to get rid of the other ethnic group. They've both made that clear. But that doesn't make them both blameless when they break their word on any attempt to avoid war, surely.
Let us remind ourselves there is such a thing as compromise.
Sure, there is such a thing as compromise. But once a compromise has broken down, is it reasonable to say that one party has to keep giving up everything they gave up to get that compromise?
Like I would be totally with you if there was any reasonable prospect of the Oslo Accords being adhered to today. But the deal was made 30 years ago, it irreversibly died with the Second Intifada 23 years ago, and there's been no new deal since then. The Palestinians today aren't saying "stick to the deal you made", they're saying "From the river to the sea". So in the present circumstance it seems unreasonable to insist on Israel sticking to the dead-and-buried compromise.
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 -
Surely all the attempts at codifying a two state demarcation that have since been soundly violated should count for something in defining what is and isn't "Palestinian land". Leaving again, the blood feud aside.
Do the Palestinians agree that those attempts count for anything in defining what is not "Palestinian land"?
Well they did sign those agreements. Given that does it matter what they really think?
Of course both sides would like the whole of Palestine for themselves and to get rid of the other ethnic group. They've both made that clear. But that doesn't make them both blameless when they break their word on any attempt to avoid war, surely.
Let us remind ourselves there is such a thing as compromise.
Sure, there is such a thing as compromise. But once a compromise has broken down, is it reasonable to say that one party has to keep giving up everything they gave up to get that compromise?
Like I would be totally with you if there was any reasonable prospect of the Oslo Accords being adhered to today. But the deal was made 30 years ago, it irreversibly died with the Second Intifada 23 years ago, and there's been no new deal since then. The Palestinians today aren't saying "stick to the deal you made", they're saying "From the river to the sea". So in the present circumstance it seems unreasonable to insist on Israel sticking to the dead-and-buried compromise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link