naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30317 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.
Bin Salman tasks Saudi "scholars" to 'Islamically inform' the population that citizens should stop discussing #Gaza because "leaders know the issue better than you" and "you are not qualified and have nothing to offer", and "your analyses are burdensome". "Trust [Bin Salman]".
The Original video comes from here, with the translated comment is:
Sheikh Ali Al-Shibl, may God protect him
For the Saudi people:
(( You are a slug with nothing ))
Just because the son of the Arabian Peninsula and the son of the Hijaz want to stand with his brothers in Gaza, this respected sheikh (( is a worthless spit )) .
But the ruler (( the dashing bear )) only knows what is good and what is bad
It has a #غزة_تستغيث tag, which seems to mean "Gaza is crying out for help", which leads me to think the poster is perhaps against religious leaders prohibiting their congregations from political discourse. I cannot tell if this original poster was being sarcastic, as their follow up tweet says:
The original clip: Perhaps I have wronged the honorable Sheikh.
If there is anyone who can explain to the Sheikh, he would be grateful
note: Please do not insult or accuse the Sheikh
Taken together, some questions / thoughts:
Most important thing: does this show MBS still wants normalization with Israel? It seems almost certain that Iran is behind Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia militias that are attacking US interests in Iraq, AND are/were funding Houthis to fight Saudis for all these years, it's natural that Israel and other Arab countries would informally ally against Iran.
If yes, then what happened to the Saudi-Iran deal that China was supposed to have brokered?
How effective is this, trying to control discourse via religion? Has MBS, or Saudi in general, tried this in the recent past? (I assume everyone's tried this 1000 years ago, but how about after the internet). Or is modern social media so recent and powerful there's no historic precedence for this?
I thought everyone would have to have a Chinese-like system of internet censorship and blocking/firewall to limit thought and discourse, but can religion do this effectively as an alternative?
is Saudi secularizing at a rate that this actually doesn't matter?
Who is this guy in the video, is he important? And was the original poster being sarcastic? Any info there would be super helpful as I have no idea what the Saudi-twitterverse is like.
How effective is this, trying to control discourse via religion? Has MBS, or Saudi in general, tried this in the recent past?
My understanding was that the fundamental basis for the Saudi state was a unification of interests between the royal house of Saud's exercise of secular power to keep order for and on behalf of the Wahhabist religious sect. In particular, the Saudi's maintenance of holy sites (primarily, but not exclusively, Mecca) and the annual hajj pilgramage, is a major source of prestige and legitimacy.
well the King plays a real role in the religions, as the Custodian of Mecca and Medina. Definitely prestigue/power. Unsure about Wahhabism as I thought that came later?
you are not qualified and have nothing to offer", and "your analyses are burdensome."
Every so often you get reminded just how based absolute monarchy is.
Seems like Saudi's leadership / MBS is tasking at least one religious authority (Imam? Ulema? mufti?) to tell people in Saudia to not talk about Gaza anymore (quote-tweeted video on twitter).
Didn’t MBS give Kushner a few billion to manage just to stay in the Trump family’s good books? MBS must know that if Trump’s in power then a combination of his own family and friends, his closeness to various conservative zionists, his moving of the embassy, congressional republicans including neocons and evangelicals, and various other things will drive him invariably to take a hardline (moreso than Biden) pro-Israel stance.
If that happens and Saudi Arabia is on the ‘Arab’ side of that kind of conflict, that risks his whole play with Kushner, risks support versus Iran and with the Houthis etc. Most Arab leaders clearly want this to go away as soon as possible, even if the status quo returns to where it was (which they were largely fine with).
Isn't that a fun trick of wordplay? It would be fair to say "Alice gave her car to Bob" if Bob is working the Valet Parking dropoff, but leave out that bit of context and suddenly the still-technically-accurate statement becomes grossly misleading. Bob is probably getting a nice tip for a nice car, but in the end he's not getting a nice car.
Most of the reporting I've seen on Kushner has been clear about the distinction, but not all...
Eh, giving kusher 2 bn to manage so he can collect fees is like giving him like $20 million each year while his expenses will be minimal (he could literally stick it in an index fund and laugh all the way to the bank), not as blatant as giving him 2 bn, but still giving him a substantial amount.
With my little amount of knowledge, I'd say that MBS wants to steer the narrative in a particular way, and that he does indeed expect theocratic fiat to just work even in an age of social media.
I would further expect theocratic fiat to work better on the segment of the Saudi population which deeply cares about Israel/Palestine, moreso than the segment which doesn’t.
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 -
Seems like Saudi's leadership / MBS is tasking at least one religious authority (Imam? Ulema? mufti?) to tell people in Saudia to not talk about Gaza anymore (quote-tweeted video on twitter).
Quote tweeter Sam Hamdi writes:
The Original video comes from here, with the translated comment is:
It has a
#غزة_تستغيثtag, which seems to mean "Gaza is crying out for help", which leads me to think the poster is perhaps against religious leaders prohibiting their congregations from political discourse. I cannot tell if this original poster was being sarcastic, as their follow up tweet says:Taken together, some questions / thoughts:
My understanding was that the fundamental basis for the Saudi state was a unification of interests between the royal house of Saud's exercise of secular power to keep order for and on behalf of the Wahhabist religious sect. In particular, the Saudi's maintenance of holy sites (primarily, but not exclusively, Mecca) and the annual hajj pilgramage, is a major source of prestige and legitimacy.
The basis for the House of Saud’s ruling of Saudi Arabia is the British decision at the end of empire. There is little further basis than that.
More options
Context Copy link
well the King plays a real role in the religions, as the Custodian of Mecca and Medina. Definitely prestigue/power. Unsure about Wahhabism as I thought that came later?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Every so often you get reminded just how based absolute monarchy is.
Didn’t MBS give Kushner a few billion to manage just to stay in the Trump family’s good books? MBS must know that if Trump’s in power then a combination of his own family and friends, his closeness to various conservative zionists, his moving of the embassy, congressional republicans including neocons and evangelicals, and various other things will drive him invariably to take a hardline (moreso than Biden) pro-Israel stance.
If that happens and Saudi Arabia is on the ‘Arab’ side of that kind of conflict, that risks his whole play with Kushner, risks support versus Iran and with the Houthis etc. Most Arab leaders clearly want this to go away as soon as possible, even if the status quo returns to where it was (which they were largely fine with).
My understanding is Kushner is managing the $2 billion (and collecting fees on it) but was not given the $2 billion.
Isn't that a fun trick of wordplay? It would be fair to say "Alice gave her car to Bob" if Bob is working the Valet Parking dropoff, but leave out that bit of context and suddenly the still-technically-accurate statement becomes grossly misleading. Bob is probably getting a nice tip for a nice car, but in the end he's not getting a nice car.
Most of the reporting I've seen on Kushner has been clear about the distinction, but not all...
Eh, giving kusher 2 bn to manage so he can collect fees is like giving him like $20 million each year while his expenses will be minimal (he could literally stick it in an index fund and laugh all the way to the bank), not as blatant as giving him 2 bn, but still giving him a substantial amount.
I basically see this as bribery with extra steps.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
With my little amount of knowledge, I'd say that MBS wants to steer the narrative in a particular way, and that he does indeed expect theocratic fiat to just work even in an age of social media.
I would further expect theocratic fiat to work better on the segment of the Saudi population which deeply cares about Israel/Palestine, moreso than the segment which doesn’t.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link