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's honestly kind of depressing how much information, proof, etc Israel/IDF provides, and still cannot win trust. Of course it doesn't help when random mid-level Israeli bureaucrats tweet random posts of unverified bs that then gets debonnnked.
Like the Shifa Hospital situation the last few days. Images and videos of IDF bringing in supplies etc for patients in the hospital: "lies, they didn't actually do this!" "just for the video/photo-op!" etc. Of course, they ARE purposeful photo-ops that are trying to counter the anti-Israeli perspective.
And then anti-Israel people will post some link PROVING that Israel "lied" in the past, but then you read the link and it is IDF claiming responsibility for some error. "This is why IDF definitely did fire rockets at the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza" etc etc. And of course then pictures come out and ... onto the next story!
It's the same as how US public comms is treated. Oh US DoD denies the casualty numbers claimed by a militia that just attacked a US base? "Lies!" "This means the casualty numbers are true!" When US DoD says, in the same manner, in the same channels, that they did something that can be seen as detrimental, like say they suffered some injuries, like US base got attacked - then what US is saying is of course true.
Everyone here probably knows this and has seen it play out. I'm just a little, idk, depressed and ranty about this.
(and I'm not ruling out that Israel does / can/ has lied about military actions, and god knows IDF has done their share of morally bad things in the past. But there just seems to be nothing israel can do to win over trust. But such is the tiktok PR battle we find ourselves in today.)
((IMO: US, Israel, and any faction that finds itself in a conflict and viewed as the more powerful "oppressor", should just keep silent and never say anything. Did Saudi announce things when fighting Houthis in Yemen? Or Assad when killing hundreds of thousands of people? I am no)
When confronted with clear evidence that Israel lied about something, your response is that it’s depressing that people still distrust Israel. What kind of rhetorical strategy is that?
This is why IDF definitely did fire rockets at the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza" etc etc. And of course then pictures come out and ... onto the next story!
As the resident Al-Ahli Speculation Enjoyer this is funny to me, as I was warned by the mods about “single issue posting” when I provided two updates on the topic. The last major update was similar to the article above: the NYTimes and LeMonde came out with their conclusion that a major piece of evidence used by Israel was false, that the rocket came from a different direction than where Israel alleges. And that’s been the last major update because of a lack of evidence to discuss. Which is why Al-Shifa is important: if Israel is lying and is also proven culpable, then IMO it’s likely this is the case also for Al-Ahli. Maybe that is exactly why there are reporters on the grounds now at Al-Shifa.
It was the president of Israel who said they weren’t striking Al-Shifa, by the way. Not a “random mid-level bureaucrat”.
[On a side note, one of the camera video recordings obtained by the Times came from Saleh al-Jafarawi, who is a kind of Palestinian Sam Hyde. Maybe this is grounds for some people to doubt the findings.]
Entities that lie to build support for waging war lose trust and don't get the default assumption of honesty. Remember the US and Israeli governments and their diehards pushing claims that Saddam was feeding people into wood chippers, had WMDs and was trying to make nukes, the guy who claimed to be his bomb maker before congress, and the earlier nonsense from Desert Storm about pulling babies out of incubators? If you questioned any of this at the time, you were a terrorist sympathizer, America hater, Al-Qaeda lover, etc. Cue hundreds of thousands dead until years later people acknowledge these as lies.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
Not to say US / Israel / any other military are without blame for the lack of trust. I agree, US military has lied in the past, and the press/government/etc lied with it (possibly in other orders, like papers lied first, apparently, for the Spanish-American war). Not saying they are without sin.
But it does feel to me that the winningest move here is to not play at all (not fight). Failing that, don't say anything while playing and hopefully you win.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
Yes. When a person or group proves that they will say anything to manipulate you into doing what they want, the correct move is to always start from the assumption that they're lying.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
It was only twenty years ago. Plenty of people in the Pentagon, Israeli and US intelligence, etc who were involved in creating and spreading war propaganda lies in the 2000s would still be active members of those institutions and remember what was done then, and newer members would doubtless be taught about the Iraq War and the like as case studies to inform future propaganda efforts.
Which is fine, as long as it's consistently applied, which hasn't always been seen in this conflict despite plentiful examples on both sides and virtually all media.
I see such things as a result of motivated reasoning coupled with the impossibility of knowing where everything you have is. No military on this planet can know with 100% certainty where every missile being shot is aimed and know where all your enemies weapons and units are. Thus when making statements, the temptation will be to assume the best of your own and the worst of your enemies, and thus it would be to choose the one where they look good.
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 -
It's honestly kind of depressing how much information, proof, etc Israel/IDF provides, and still cannot win trust. Of course it doesn't help when random mid-level Israeli bureaucrats tweet random posts of unverified bs that then gets debonnnked.
Like the Shifa Hospital situation the last few days. Images and videos of IDF bringing in supplies etc for patients in the hospital: "lies, they didn't actually do this!" "just for the video/photo-op!" etc. Of course, they ARE purposeful photo-ops that are trying to counter the anti-Israeli perspective.
And then anti-Israel people will post some link PROVING that Israel "lied" in the past, but then you read the link and it is IDF claiming responsibility for some error. "This is why IDF definitely did fire rockets at the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza" etc etc. And of course then pictures come out and ... onto the next story!
It's the same as how US public comms is treated. Oh US DoD denies the casualty numbers claimed by a militia that just attacked a US base? "Lies!" "This means the casualty numbers are true!" When US DoD says, in the same manner, in the same channels, that they did something that can be seen as detrimental, like say they suffered some injuries, like US base got attacked - then what US is saying is of course true.
Everyone here probably knows this and has seen it play out. I'm just a little, idk, depressed and ranty about this.
(and I'm not ruling out that Israel does / can/ has lied about military actions, and god knows IDF has done their share of morally bad things in the past. But there just seems to be nothing israel can do to win over trust. But such is the tiktok PR battle we find ourselves in today.)
((IMO: US, Israel, and any faction that finds itself in a conflict and viewed as the more powerful "oppressor", should just keep silent and never say anything. Did Saudi announce things when fighting Houthis in Yemen? Or Assad when killing hundreds of thousands of people? I am no)
When confronted with clear evidence that Israel lied about something, your response is that it’s depressing that people still distrust Israel. What kind of rhetorical strategy is that?
As the resident Al-Ahli Speculation Enjoyer this is funny to me, as I was warned by the mods about “single issue posting” when I provided two updates on the topic. The last major update was similar to the article above: the NYTimes and LeMonde came out with their conclusion that a major piece of evidence used by Israel was false, that the rocket came from a different direction than where Israel alleges. And that’s been the last major update because of a lack of evidence to discuss. Which is why Al-Shifa is important: if Israel is lying and is also proven culpable, then IMO it’s likely this is the case also for Al-Ahli. Maybe that is exactly why there are reporters on the grounds now at Al-Shifa.
It was the president of Israel who said they weren’t striking Al-Shifa, by the way. Not a “random mid-level bureaucrat”.
[On a side note, one of the camera video recordings obtained by the Times came from Saleh al-Jafarawi, who is a kind of Palestinian Sam Hyde. Maybe this is grounds for some people to doubt the findings.]
More options
Context Copy link
Entities that lie to build support for waging war lose trust and don't get the default assumption of honesty. Remember the US and Israeli governments and their diehards pushing claims that Saddam was feeding people into wood chippers, had WMDs and was trying to make nukes, the guy who claimed to be his bomb maker before congress, and the earlier nonsense from Desert Storm about pulling babies out of incubators? If you questioned any of this at the time, you were a terrorist sympathizer, America hater, Al-Qaeda lover, etc. Cue hundreds of thousands dead until years later people acknowledge these as lies.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
Not to say US / Israel / any other military are without blame for the lack of trust. I agree, US military has lied in the past, and the press/government/etc lied with it (possibly in other orders, like papers lied first, apparently, for the Spanish-American war). Not saying they are without sin.
But it does feel to me that the winningest move here is to not play at all (not fight). Failing that, don't say anything while playing and hopefully you win.
Yes. When a person or group proves that they will say anything to manipulate you into doing what they want, the correct move is to always start from the assumption that they're lying.
More options
Context Copy link
It was only twenty years ago. Plenty of people in the Pentagon, Israeli and US intelligence, etc who were involved in creating and spreading war propaganda lies in the 2000s would still be active members of those institutions and remember what was done then, and newer members would doubtless be taught about the Iraq War and the like as case studies to inform future propaganda efforts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which is fine, as long as it's consistently applied, which hasn't always been seen in this conflict despite plentiful examples on both sides and virtually all media.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I see such things as a result of motivated reasoning coupled with the impossibility of knowing where everything you have is. No military on this planet can know with 100% certainty where every missile being shot is aimed and know where all your enemies weapons and units are. Thus when making statements, the temptation will be to assume the best of your own and the worst of your enemies, and thus it would be to choose the one where they look good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link