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.
Please show me where I said that Israel should not respond. As I explicitly said, there are options other than not responding and responding in a manner which will inevitably kill large numbers of civilians.
I already mentioned the response to the Munich Olympics incident.
More importantly, what do you think would have happened, that it would be in some way advantageous to Israel?
Well, for one thing, this would have been more likely to come to fruition. As would various other arrangements between Israel and local governments which are not particularly enamored of Iran and its proxies. There are a lot of potential advantages to not giving your enemies credible grounds for accusing you of war crimes.
You expect Israelis to conduct covert assassinations of thousands of Hamasniks inside the Gaza strip, by foot? That’s not very realistic. Unless you meant assassinating Hamas leaders in Qatar, which I’m all for. It doesn’t solve the issue, though, so I don’t see the point.
How does a deal with Saudi help with removing Hamas monsters from Gaza? Or at all, in this context? This is just unrelated.
It doesn’t solve the issue, though, so I don’t see the point.
There is not going to be a perfect solution. The point is simply that there are choices other than the imperfect solution of doing nothing and the imperfect solution of using force in a manner that is guaranteed to kill large numbers of civilians. But making leaders pay for their decisions will certainly encourage the next leaders to make different decisions in the future.
How does a deal with Saudi help with removing Hamas monsters from Gaza?
I didn't say it did. You asked what would happen that "would be in some way advantageous to Israel."
Ok, so your solution is not a solution, and the future affects you anticipate are unrelated to the conversation’s context. You’re also very clear that you’re not saying certain things, but won’t clarify or elaborate on your actual point.
I’d say you’re not communicating clearly enough for me to continue this conversation, and it seems like I’m not the only one who thinks that way.
the future affects you anticipate are unrelated to the conversation’s context
This is the very first thing I said: "It would, nevertheless, probably have been in Israel's long-term best interests to have "[left] the depravity and hatred of the Hamas project for the world to behold." Which was in response to a criticism of someone who implicitly made the same claim. So, if you think the future effect I mentioned is unrelated to the conversation's context, you are misremembering what that context was.
so your solution is not a solution,
And your "solution", ie, kill all Hamas members, is a short-term solution with enormous short-term costs, possible enormous medium term costs if it leads to a wider war, and serious long-term costs. Hence, it, too, is not a solution.
As for Hamas, I didn't only mention the Saudi deal, did I? I also mentioned "various other arrangements between Israel and local governments which are not particularly enamored of Iran and its proxies." There are other countries in the region that would like to see Hamas (and Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies) disabled, but their cooperation with Israel becomes less politically tenable as civilian casualties in Gaza mount.
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 -
What, specifically, do you think would have happened if Israel did not respond?
Please show me where I said that Israel should not respond. As I explicitly said, there are options other than not responding and responding in a manner which will inevitably kill large numbers of civilians.
What do you think would have been the best response for Israel here and why?
More options
Context Copy link
Such as? Again, be specific please.
More importantly, what do you think would have happened, that it would be in some way advantageous to Israel?
I already mentioned the response to the Munich Olympics incident.
Well, for one thing, this would have been more likely to come to fruition. As would various other arrangements between Israel and local governments which are not particularly enamored of Iran and its proxies. There are a lot of potential advantages to not giving your enemies credible grounds for accusing you of war crimes.
You expect Israelis to conduct covert assassinations of thousands of Hamasniks inside the Gaza strip, by foot? That’s not very realistic. Unless you meant assassinating Hamas leaders in Qatar, which I’m all for. It doesn’t solve the issue, though, so I don’t see the point.
How does a deal with Saudi help with removing Hamas monsters from Gaza? Or at all, in this context? This is just unrelated.
There is not going to be a perfect solution. The point is simply that there are choices other than the imperfect solution of doing nothing and the imperfect solution of using force in a manner that is guaranteed to kill large numbers of civilians. But making leaders pay for their decisions will certainly encourage the next leaders to make different decisions in the future.
I didn't say it did. You asked what would happen that "would be in some way advantageous to Israel."
Ok, so your solution is not a solution, and the future affects you anticipate are unrelated to the conversation’s context. You’re also very clear that you’re not saying certain things, but won’t clarify or elaborate on your actual point.
I’d say you’re not communicating clearly enough for me to continue this conversation, and it seems like I’m not the only one who thinks that way.
This is the very first thing I said: "It would, nevertheless, probably have been in Israel's long-term best interests to have "[left] the depravity and hatred of the Hamas project for the world to behold." Which was in response to a criticism of someone who implicitly made the same claim. So, if you think the future effect I mentioned is unrelated to the conversation's context, you are misremembering what that context was.
And your "solution", ie, kill all Hamas members, is a short-term solution with enormous short-term costs, possible enormous medium term costs if it leads to a wider war, and serious long-term costs. Hence, it, too, is not a solution.
As for Hamas, I didn't only mention the Saudi deal, did I? I also mentioned "various other arrangements between Israel and local governments which are not particularly enamored of Iran and its proxies." There are other countries in the region that would like to see Hamas (and Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies) disabled, but their cooperation with Israel becomes less politically tenable as civilian casualties in Gaza mount.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link