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.
IDF. The sooner and thorougher they finish eradicating Hamas, the sooner the Palestinians life will start improving.
Edit: Not a satire or sarcasm. Hamas has entagled all military and civilian spaces so that enormous civilian casualties are unavoidable, hamas has made the life of any palestinian in the gaza strip hell, hamas made the coexisting of Israel and Hamas impossible (how israel helped creating hamas is matter for another time), the best way to save palestinians is to help Hamas lose.
I second this. Until Hamas is eradicated there is nothing you can do to not indirectly aid Hamas. Even if you could e.g. give money to a charity to provide food with a 100% guarantee the money would be used on bread and cheese instead of weapons this would still free up money for Hamas to move from providing food for the civilians to weapons instead.
For an example consider a situation where Hamas spends $10 million a year on food and $10 million a year on weapons, where Gaza needs $20 million of food a year (the other $10 million of food comes from current charity). If you donate $1 million to charity so that Gaza is getting $11 million of food from charity Hamas now only needs to spend $9 million to sort of feed its population, which has just freed up an extra $1 million for them to use on weapons instead of food.
The net result of your charitable donation is that the Gazans get the same amount of food they were getting before but Hamas has more money to spend on rockets.
I understand this is a toy example with numbers pulled out of thin air, but as far as I can tell, Hamas spends nothing on feeding civilians and leaves that as a problem for others to solve. And then steals the aid when it comes in.
Not facetious. There are no organizations there which are independent and which can guard their resources and supplies from Hamas. So whatever you send - Hamas will have dibs on it. And there is absolutely nothing in the way Hamas has acted so far that indicates that they will put the wellbeing of the civilians that they use as human shields instead of that of their members.
There may be organizations that are honest and will help but they will be working with the displaced civilians in Egypt, not with the ones in the cross fire.
There are no organizations there which are independent and which can guard their resources and supplies from Hamas. So whatever you send - Hamas will have dibs on it.
Again, as with other discussions, I think it is important to remember that Hamas is the local government. Any goal that starts with "help Palestinians, but not Hamas" is going to be very difficult, on par with a 1943 mission to "help Germans, but not Nazis" or an 1864 plan to "help Southerners, not the Confederacy". While it's possible to thread the needle to some extent, the damage being done to the Nazi and Confederate institutions and civilians with blockades and economic warfare were part of plans being used by the putative good guys, not an accidental bug that we just needed the Red Cross to workaround. Trying to break those blockades and deliver food supplies to enemy civilians has pretty obvious inherent problems associated with it.
If someone just wants to see Hamas win, OK, I guess that's a stance. But really, the "help Palestinians, but not Hamas" position is not just trivially good.
I appreciate that my question was not one with an obvious and straightforward answer, and it's a problem any time you want to assist the populace suffering under a corrupt and despotic regime (even if the populace should have known better than to vote said regime into power).
But all that being said, I feel like there were more constructive responses to the question available than "give your money to the IDF so they can have an easier time bombing Gaza into the stone age lol lol lmao". I think it should have been abundantly obvious that when I say I'm looking for an organisation to which to direct charitable donations, that precludes the armed forces (unless they're involved in peacekeeping, which the IDF obviously are not).
I was mildly tempted to respond with "donate to the IDF" myself, but for better or worse I restrained myself since I could clearly see that that wasn't in the spirit of what you sought, even if I think it's true.
I suppose it depends on how much risk you're willing to take that supplies bought with your money will be misused, barring something particularly specific like a charity that hands out tampons, I suspect that it's going to get yoinked, and in that specific example, intentionally. (Russian conscripts were given tampons and pads by their families when bandages were in short supply, but sadly a material made for soaking up blood isn't very good at staunching a bleed)
Keep in mind that even benign items can be seized and sold on the market for money, and I doubt Hamas has many qualms in that regard. Besides, the IDF isn't particularly funding constrained, at least within the range of any potential donations you might make, unless you're a billionaire I suppose.
Not /u/Lizzardspawn, but that's basically what it boils down to. Until the IDF restores something like a 21st century notion of civilized order, helping Palestinians is nearly impossible.
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 -
IDF. The sooner and thorougher they finish eradicating Hamas, the sooner the Palestinians life will start improving.
Edit: Not a satire or sarcasm. Hamas has entagled all military and civilian spaces so that enormous civilian casualties are unavoidable, hamas has made the life of any palestinian in the gaza strip hell, hamas made the coexisting of Israel and Hamas impossible (how israel helped creating hamas is matter for another time), the best way to save palestinians is to help Hamas lose.
I second this. Until Hamas is eradicated there is nothing you can do to not indirectly aid Hamas. Even if you could e.g. give money to a charity to provide food with a 100% guarantee the money would be used on bread and cheese instead of weapons this would still free up money for Hamas to move from providing food for the civilians to weapons instead.
For an example consider a situation where Hamas spends $10 million a year on food and $10 million a year on weapons, where Gaza needs $20 million of food a year (the other $10 million of food comes from current charity). If you donate $1 million to charity so that Gaza is getting $11 million of food from charity Hamas now only needs to spend $9 million to sort of feed its population, which has just freed up an extra $1 million for them to use on weapons instead of food.
The net result of your charitable donation is that the Gazans get the same amount of food they were getting before but Hamas has more money to spend on rockets.
I understand this is a toy example with numbers pulled out of thin air, but as far as I can tell, Hamas spends nothing on feeding civilians and leaves that as a problem for others to solve. And then steals the aid when it comes in.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is that "because of the bombs" or "because Hamas uses hospitals as human shields for military bases"?
The lack of anesthesia would presumably be because of neither but rather the total blockade that Israel has imposed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not looking for a facetious answer, thank you.
Not facetious. There are no organizations there which are independent and which can guard their resources and supplies from Hamas. So whatever you send - Hamas will have dibs on it. And there is absolutely nothing in the way Hamas has acted so far that indicates that they will put the wellbeing of the civilians that they use as human shields instead of that of their members.
There may be organizations that are honest and will help but they will be working with the displaced civilians in Egypt, not with the ones in the cross fire.
Again, as with other discussions, I think it is important to remember that Hamas is the local government. Any goal that starts with "help Palestinians, but not Hamas" is going to be very difficult, on par with a 1943 mission to "help Germans, but not Nazis" or an 1864 plan to "help Southerners, not the Confederacy". While it's possible to thread the needle to some extent, the damage being done to the Nazi and Confederate institutions and civilians with blockades and economic warfare were part of plans being used by the putative good guys, not an accidental bug that we just needed the Red Cross to workaround. Trying to break those blockades and deliver food supplies to enemy civilians has pretty obvious inherent problems associated with it.
If someone just wants to see Hamas win, OK, I guess that's a stance. But really, the "help Palestinians, but not Hamas" position is not just trivially good.
I appreciate that my question was not one with an obvious and straightforward answer, and it's a problem any time you want to assist the populace suffering under a corrupt and despotic regime (even if the populace should have known better than to vote said regime into power).
But all that being said, I feel like there were more constructive responses to the question available than "give your money to the IDF so they can have an easier time bombing Gaza into the stone age lol lol lmao". I think it should have been abundantly obvious that when I say I'm looking for an organisation to which to direct charitable donations, that precludes the armed forces (unless they're involved in peacekeeping, which the IDF obviously are not).
I was mildly tempted to respond with "donate to the IDF" myself, but for better or worse I restrained myself since I could clearly see that that wasn't in the spirit of what you sought, even if I think it's true.
I suppose it depends on how much risk you're willing to take that supplies bought with your money will be misused, barring something particularly specific like a charity that hands out tampons, I suspect that it's going to get yoinked, and in that specific example, intentionally. (Russian conscripts were given tampons and pads by their families when bandages were in short supply, but sadly a material made for soaking up blood isn't very good at staunching a bleed)
Keep in mind that even benign items can be seized and sold on the market for money, and I doubt Hamas has many qualms in that regard. Besides, the IDF isn't particularly funding constrained, at least within the range of any potential donations you might make, unless you're a billionaire I suppose.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you had said that to start with, I'd have had no objection.
Not /u/Lizzardspawn, but that's basically what it boils down to. Until the IDF restores something like a 21st century notion of civilized order, helping Palestinians is nearly impossible.
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