This is a weekly thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or IR history. I usually start off with coverage of some current events from a mix of countries I follow personally and countries I think the forum lives in or might be interested in. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
What is this place?
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.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Lebanon
There has been scattered fighting between the Israelis and the Lebanese Shia militia Hezbollah, but so far a serious general war has been avoided. Hezbollah leader Hassa Nasrallah last Friday gave a much awaited and heavily attended speech endorsing the Palestinian side of the conflict, reiterated that they had nothing to do with it and giving a bellicose but indirect response to the question of whether he planned to escalate: “Some claim that we are about to engage in the war. I am telling you, we have been engaged in this battle since October 8”.
Following a recent Israeli missile strike that killed several Lebanese civilians, tensions are high, with one Hezbollah lawmaker threatening to respond “double over” against any Israeli attacks.
France, which has been so pro-Israel they banned anti-Israeli marches, has still found themselves calling for a humanitarian ceasefire, and has now offered to send armored vehicles to the Lebanese army to “beef up the Lebanese national army so that it could coordinate well with the United Nations peacekeeping force as tensions mount between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah in southern Lebanon”.
Hamas has also now claimed that it too is operating within Southern Lebanon and “had launched 16 rockets targeting the northern Israeli city of Nahariya and the southern outskirts of the city of Haifa.”
So I take it from the French response that Hezbollah’s involvement in the Israel war would be expected to trigger a declaration of war on them by the rest of Lebanon? I know a prominent Christian leader had said it would be taken as an aggressive act, but thought Hezbollah was the main remaining military force in Lebanon.
You're 100% correct that Hezbollah is the only meaningful fighting force in Lebanon but they do actually retain a military still, which sounds funny to even say lol. It's hard to say what would happen (and hopefully cooler heads prevail) but yeah I would definitely say arming the actual armed forces is at the least a sign that Hezbollah should expect internal politics to not give them a blank check in the conflict. The last Christian President Aoun actually had a tacit alliance with Hezollah, but there's no President now and no alliance to paper over demographic divisions, and the Christian population of Lebanon has often looked to France as a possible protector.
More options
Context Copy link
Alternatively, the French response hasn't been a warning to the Israeli's, it's been a warning to Iran- in the sense of 'if Hezbollah gets involved, these APCs go to the other side of a potential Lebanese civil war.'
While the OP's framing is that the French position is a response to Israel, a lot of maneuverings going on in the region right now have been aimed at Iran, who reportedly was preparing to try and arrange basically a regional intifada that was supposed to have been called for by Hezbollah as the relevant proxy. There's been quite a bit of shuttle diplomacy in the region in the region, and depending on who you believe, there were direct threats that if other Iranian proxies got involved in earnest, it would be considered a formal act of war by Iran by the US. This allegedly occured right before Hezbollah did a significant announcement speach that had some potential groundwork for being the referenced call to arms, but ended up being an underwhelming 'we're staying out of it, mostly' and restriction to token efforts.
If you believe those framings- and I wouldn't discount them entirely- the French action isn't 'we will help Lebanese national army against Israel'- for which APCs would do little to no good- but 'we will help the Lebanese national army against Hezbollah,' in which the APCs would be directly relevant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link