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.
What do you guys think the possibility of this Israel-Gaza situation exploding to include Hezbollah formally? What about US-Iran?
If it was going to, it already would have exploded. As it is, if they join now, it will be anti-climatic.
Some of the allegations from the regional shuttle diplomacy that went around the region in October is that they were basically deterred by direct threats to Hezbollah and Iran that if they joined in the war, they would be considered direct belligerants and to have been in on in the initial 7 Oct attacked as a direct act of war by the Iranian government, whose relations with Hezbollah are much stronger than Hamas. Further, other actors indicated that if Hezbollah got involved it would be a non-trivial risk of civil war in Lebanon, such as with the French making a considerable arms 'gift' to the governmental forces that would likely operate against Hezbollah in such a scenario.
As is, while some Iranian proxy groups are trying limited support- the Houthis have tried to lob some things from all the way down in Yemen- it's pretty marginal, and not a particularly regionally-supported affair. (The Saudis reportedly have shot down some Houthi stuff.) Hezbollah could try and get involved for its own reasons, but it'd be largely anti-climatic, and after the very visibile period of letting Hamas fight on its own, and at this point I don't think anyone really believes Hezbollah cares that much about Hamas per see.
As for US-Iran, Iran has long been trying to leverage it's various proxy political and military forces in Iraq and Syria to drive the US out. They appear to have decided now's the time to escalate, hence the counter-strikes.
If it was going to, it already would have exploded. As it is, if they join now, it will be anti-climatic.
I would be inclined to agree. However, the situation along the Israel-Lebanese border is now such that it would have certainly resulted in a full-fledged war by Israel against Hezbollah, at least at the scale of the 2006 war, if Israel weren't preoccupied with Gaza. Hezbollah doesn't want a full war, but they're relying on the fact that Israel wants a full war even less in order to get away with more attacks than they could in other circumstances. Israel won't tolerate this state indefinitely, and it could still escalate to a full-scale war if either side miscalculates.
I agree to a good degree, and even would argue Hezbollah is trying to calibrate the pressure precisely to distract Israel from focusing on Hamas, but states can very much downplay some casus belli factors when they don't want to engage a particular front.
Further, other actors indicated that if Hezbollah got involved it would be a non-trivial risk of civil war in Lebanon, such as with the French making a considerable arms 'gift' to the governmental forces that would likely operate against Hezbollah in such a scenario.
It seems like there’s a non-trivial risk that a second Lebanese civil war with Hezbollah fighting Israel directly ends with the Shiites getting ethnically cleansed from Lebanon.
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 -
If it was going to, it already would have exploded. As it is, if they join now, it will be anti-climatic.
Some of the allegations from the regional shuttle diplomacy that went around the region in October is that they were basically deterred by direct threats to Hezbollah and Iran that if they joined in the war, they would be considered direct belligerants and to have been in on in the initial 7 Oct attacked as a direct act of war by the Iranian government, whose relations with Hezbollah are much stronger than Hamas. Further, other actors indicated that if Hezbollah got involved it would be a non-trivial risk of civil war in Lebanon, such as with the French making a considerable arms 'gift' to the governmental forces that would likely operate against Hezbollah in such a scenario.
As is, while some Iranian proxy groups are trying limited support- the Houthis have tried to lob some things from all the way down in Yemen- it's pretty marginal, and not a particularly regionally-supported affair. (The Saudis reportedly have shot down some Houthi stuff.) Hezbollah could try and get involved for its own reasons, but it'd be largely anti-climatic, and after the very visibile period of letting Hamas fight on its own, and at this point I don't think anyone really believes Hezbollah cares that much about Hamas per see.
As for US-Iran, Iran has long been trying to leverage it's various proxy political and military forces in Iraq and Syria to drive the US out. They appear to have decided now's the time to escalate, hence the counter-strikes.
I would be inclined to agree. However, the situation along the Israel-Lebanese border is now such that it would have certainly resulted in a full-fledged war by Israel against Hezbollah, at least at the scale of the 2006 war, if Israel weren't preoccupied with Gaza. Hezbollah doesn't want a full war, but they're relying on the fact that Israel wants a full war even less in order to get away with more attacks than they could in other circumstances. Israel won't tolerate this state indefinitely, and it could still escalate to a full-scale war if either side miscalculates.
I agree to a good degree, and even would argue Hezbollah is trying to calibrate the pressure precisely to distract Israel from focusing on Hamas, but states can very much downplay some casus belli factors when they don't want to engage a particular front.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems like there’s a non-trivial risk that a second Lebanese civil war with Hezbollah fighting Israel directly ends with the Shiites getting ethnically cleansed from Lebanon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link