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.
I don't really see much distance between OBL and Hamas. They both seem to me to be primarily motivated by wanting to destroy Israel.
Like OBL throws in a bunch of other grievances too. He complains about the gays, and interest, and climate change, and nuking Japan. But if you read his letter and just objectively look for his one core issue? It's Israel. Same as Hamas, he just wants the Jews gone or (preferably) dead.
Osama's broader grievance-theme was about the loss of respectability/pride of the Arab-Islamic world than Israel per see, though there isn't much distance between them.
This ties to a broader theme in (generally Arab) Islamist thought which contrasts the golden age of the Islamic ascent (when the Arabs dominated the ancient empire of Persia, and then Islamists as a whole overthrew the (Eastern) Robman Empire, truly ancient and established major powers of the era), were broadly acknowledged as world-leaders in thought and technology (in large part from adopting/synthesizing/spreading the knowledge centers they conquered), and were the dominant military force that seemed to ever-advance on all fronts as the Christians feared them, but even the culture-shock of the crusaders were thrown back in a series of triumphs against the outsider... compared to the subjugation of the colonial eras, and then the present malais where the Arab identity isn't a thing of pride and admiration from afar, but with its vices of decadence, impovershment, corruption, and hypcrisy well known. There is a consistent thing of 'things were better when we were better,' with radical islaming groups functionally viewing/presenting themselves as radical reformists trying to correct a shamefully corruption.
I hate to oversimplify it as 'it's a pride thing,' but that's not far away from it. It's about self-respect as much as esteem in comparison to others... which is where Israel comes through, as the Jews were an unquestionable under-class, something that even the lowest Arab good-Islamic person was above, until Israel defeated the prides of the Arab world- some of the key leaders of the pan-Arabism when Arab identity-politics was at its height- repeatedly, decisively, and humiliatingly in multiple wars. If you read some of the diplomatic history from around the time of the foundation of Israel and some of the early wars, there are heavy and repeated themes and points where Arab states were acting out of pride and emotion, rather than reason/rationality/interests/strategy. Politiclaly, Yom Kippur War was more about proving the Israelis weren't invincible and restoring Egyptian self-respect than an actual campaign plan or changing the borders- hence why the Egyptians decisively lost the war, but were willing to accept the land-for-peace arrangement with Israel and the US not too long after.
Returning to OBL, Israel is the 'core issue' because Israel is evidence against pride, and the reminder of humiliation. Erasing Israel is about erasing shame, but the core/underlying issue is one of pride and self-respect which cannot make peace with what one views as properly inferior.
Or at least that's view, though the distinction may be irrelevant.
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 don't really see much distance between OBL and Hamas. They both seem to me to be primarily motivated by wanting to destroy Israel.
Like OBL throws in a bunch of other grievances too. He complains about the gays, and interest, and climate change, and nuking Japan. But if you read his letter and just objectively look for his one core issue? It's Israel. Same as Hamas, he just wants the Jews gone or (preferably) dead.
Osama's broader grievance-theme was about the loss of respectability/pride of the Arab-Islamic world than Israel per see, though there isn't much distance between them.
This ties to a broader theme in (generally Arab) Islamist thought which contrasts the golden age of the Islamic ascent (when the Arabs dominated the ancient empire of Persia, and then Islamists as a whole overthrew the (Eastern) Robman Empire, truly ancient and established major powers of the era), were broadly acknowledged as world-leaders in thought and technology (in large part from adopting/synthesizing/spreading the knowledge centers they conquered), and were the dominant military force that seemed to ever-advance on all fronts as the Christians feared them, but even the culture-shock of the crusaders were thrown back in a series of triumphs against the outsider... compared to the subjugation of the colonial eras, and then the present malais where the Arab identity isn't a thing of pride and admiration from afar, but with its vices of decadence, impovershment, corruption, and hypcrisy well known. There is a consistent thing of 'things were better when we were better,' with radical islaming groups functionally viewing/presenting themselves as radical reformists trying to correct a shamefully corruption.
I hate to oversimplify it as 'it's a pride thing,' but that's not far away from it. It's about self-respect as much as esteem in comparison to others... which is where Israel comes through, as the Jews were an unquestionable under-class, something that even the lowest Arab good-Islamic person was above, until Israel defeated the prides of the Arab world- some of the key leaders of the pan-Arabism when Arab identity-politics was at its height- repeatedly, decisively, and humiliatingly in multiple wars. If you read some of the diplomatic history from around the time of the foundation of Israel and some of the early wars, there are heavy and repeated themes and points where Arab states were acting out of pride and emotion, rather than reason/rationality/interests/strategy. Politiclaly, Yom Kippur War was more about proving the Israelis weren't invincible and restoring Egyptian self-respect than an actual campaign plan or changing the borders- hence why the Egyptians decisively lost the war, but were willing to accept the land-for-peace arrangement with Israel and the US not too long after.
Returning to OBL, Israel is the 'core issue' because Israel is evidence against pride, and the reminder of humiliation. Erasing Israel is about erasing shame, but the core/underlying issue is one of pride and self-respect which cannot make peace with what one views as properly inferior.
Or at least that's view, though the distinction may be irrelevant.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link