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.
It would just be reloading, not peace. And therefore I don’t think it’s a good idea. Until Hamas is replaced with a government that wants to live in peace, the conflict can’t really end. Ceasefire without that victory means Palestinians rearm, start shooting rockets, and plan their next attack. It’s been tried for 75 years now, and it’s not working nor will it. And I see pretending that it will as the kind of childish no answer given by people who don’t live with the consequences
Two thoughts: First, Palestinian casualties since Oct. 7 are close to an order of magnitude higher than Israeli casualties on Oct. 7. Israel has already responded; who’s to say they need to keep it up?
Second, whatever they do, they should do it on their own, without a penny of U.S. aid. Since that doesn’t seem to be on the table, I support a ceasefire, and I hope international pressure succeeds in getting one put in place.
The purpose of the Israeli war is to get Hamas out of power, not to kill an equal number of Gazans as the number of Israelis who died in the initial attack. The goal isn't revenge, it's regime change.
A ceasefire just means that Hamas gets another few years to oppress the Gazans before trying for another massacre.
Alternatively if the goal was simply to kill enough Palestinians that they would be deterred from any future attack, I think it's clear that number has not been reached yet - if it exists at all.
Does Israel have any reasonable shot at both getting Hamas out of power and preventing the rise of Hamas 2.0? I don’t believe it does. If I’m right about that, the only question that remains is how much vengeance the Israelis should exact on the Gazans for the events of October 7. An order of magnitude more fatalities plus an unknown number of additional casualties doesn’t seem like a ridiculous stopping point. After all, if regime change isn’t possible, is it really moral to continue killing? It certainly violates most people’s idea of a just war.
Does Israel have any reasonable shot at both getting Hamas out of power and preventing the rise of Hamas 2.0? I don’t believe it does.
Why not? Why can't it be an ongoing West Bank-style occupation? You don't see Hamas seizing power in Ramallah or rockets being launched from Hebron - and the people there hate Israel every bit as much as the ones in Gaza do.
I understand that would be unpopular internationally, but what else is new?
I believe the casualty level necessary to subdue Hamas and occupy Gaza would be unacceptable even to Israel’s closest ally. If Israel had gone in blasting in the first two days after the attack, they might have gotten away with it. By now, though, the moment has passed, and I don’t see any possible path toward occupation.
Israel has already responded; who’s to say they need to keep it up?
I don't think a world were every couple decades Palestine kills one thousand Israelis and Israel then kills ten thousand Palestinians is the ideal equilibrium. Although given how messy this conflict is, maybe it is
Israel needs to find a way to make Palestinians wealthier so they lose interest in fighting. The only bomb that can pacify a restive population is a money bomb.
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 a question for those of you who support a ceasefire.
How do you think Israel should respond to the events of October 7?
It would just be reloading, not peace. And therefore I don’t think it’s a good idea. Until Hamas is replaced with a government that wants to live in peace, the conflict can’t really end. Ceasefire without that victory means Palestinians rearm, start shooting rockets, and plan their next attack. It’s been tried for 75 years now, and it’s not working nor will it. And I see pretending that it will as the kind of childish no answer given by people who don’t live with the consequences
More options
Context Copy link
Two thoughts: First, Palestinian casualties since Oct. 7 are close to an order of magnitude higher than Israeli casualties on Oct. 7. Israel has already responded; who’s to say they need to keep it up?
Second, whatever they do, they should do it on their own, without a penny of U.S. aid. Since that doesn’t seem to be on the table, I support a ceasefire, and I hope international pressure succeeds in getting one put in place.
The purpose of the Israeli war is to get Hamas out of power, not to kill an equal number of Gazans as the number of Israelis who died in the initial attack. The goal isn't revenge, it's regime change.
A ceasefire just means that Hamas gets another few years to oppress the Gazans before trying for another massacre.
Alternatively if the goal was simply to kill enough Palestinians that they would be deterred from any future attack, I think it's clear that number has not been reached yet - if it exists at all.
More options
Context Copy link
Does Israel have any reasonable shot at both getting Hamas out of power and preventing the rise of Hamas 2.0? I don’t believe it does. If I’m right about that, the only question that remains is how much vengeance the Israelis should exact on the Gazans for the events of October 7. An order of magnitude more fatalities plus an unknown number of additional casualties doesn’t seem like a ridiculous stopping point. After all, if regime change isn’t possible, is it really moral to continue killing? It certainly violates most people’s idea of a just war.
Why not? Why can't it be an ongoing West Bank-style occupation? You don't see Hamas seizing power in Ramallah or rockets being launched from Hebron - and the people there hate Israel every bit as much as the ones in Gaza do.
I understand that would be unpopular internationally, but what else is new?
I believe the casualty level necessary to subdue Hamas and occupy Gaza would be unacceptable even to Israel’s closest ally. If Israel had gone in blasting in the first two days after the attack, they might have gotten away with it. By now, though, the moment has passed, and I don’t see any possible path toward occupation.
Who is going to stop them and how? It may be "unacceptable" but in practice "unacceptable" things get accepted all the time.
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
I don't think a world were every couple decades Palestine kills one thousand Israelis and Israel then kills ten thousand Palestinians is the ideal equilibrium. Although given how messy this conflict is, maybe it is
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Israel needs to find a way to make Palestinians wealthier so they lose interest in fighting. The only bomb that can pacify a restive population is a money bomb.
How are they supposed to do that while Hamas runs the place?
More options
Context Copy link
Palestinians get wealthier -> Palestinians use wealth to buy weapons -> Palestinians attack Israel more effectively.
More options
Context Copy link
You mean like the work permit program that was going on and growing prior to the attack?
Totally insufficient. Unemployment was massive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
arent they doing that? remove hamas, demilitarize gaza like they did west bank. West Bank is much wealthier than Gaza.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link