Thread by @JYuter

1. I rarely comment directly on the political situation in Israel, and I am intentionally declining to comment directly on Trump's latest initiative.

I would like to offer a thought about the discussion/debate/discourse itself.

2. Most of the loudest voices here are committed to their narratives, which means emphasizing whatever data confirms their beliefs and ignoring whatever contradicts it.

3. Arguments shaped *around* biases are predictably incoherent. They don't withstand scrutiny, but to their proponents, they don't even have to. This is especially true when dealing with the moral aspects of politics. As John Stuart Mill stated in On the Subjection of Women:

4. But back to the discourse. Several years ago, I came across a fascinating paper, "Third-Party Interventions and the Duration of Intrastate Conflicts" by Patrick M. Regan.

Short version: Third-party interventions tend to lengthen conflicts
jstor.org/stable/3176239…

4. Regan notably excludes Israel from the discussion bec it doesn't neatly fit his model, but I think we can see how his findings apply.

5. The best analogy I can give is when a couple decides to divorce and each person has "friends" whispering in their ears about what's "best" for them - more often than not interjecting their own issues into an already contentious situation.

6. I think the same thing is true regarding Israel in that a whole lot of people seem to be using the conflict as a proxy for their own political and moral agendas.

This is my best explanation for *why* people are so committed to incoherent/inconsistent positions.

7. There is a bunch of work on the ground for resolution and coexistence which you'll never hear about because the resolutions people in the real world reach are incompatible with the goals of the proxy fighters who have no skin in the game.

8. I think the following quote by Booker T. Washington is equally relevant to discussions about Israel.

9. Far too many people's professional and even personal identities are too committed to a narrow approach that an *actual* resolution would create an existential crisis. They benefit too much from a continuing conflict and a resolution on other's terms is against their interest

10. In my opinion, very few people weighing in have any political or moral credibility re Israel for me to take seriously.

I'm also aware that neither they nor their supporters care about my opinion.

11. I'm ok with this. But if you're reading, you should know that *I* know that as you try to score points for your side and get those sweet, sweet likes and retweets, that your punditry mostly serves your own needs and not the people about whom you claim to care.