site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   27667 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 13, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm "Pro-Palestine" in the sense that I find the most defensible solution to the conflict would be two states on 1949 borders, PA in charge of the whole State of Palestine (undemocratically if necessarily), right to return to those who actually have been expelled but not to descendants, resettlement with compensation to descendants in their current countries of habitation, and international security guarantees to the two countries in a suitable way. Furthermore, I find that Israel and its policy of settlement are chiefly responsible for this not being achieved and the onus would be on Israel to take most of the steps to actualize this.

I do not base this on any moral claims on either party but simply on my understanding of what would be the most consistent solution in lieu of the international law; clearly no matter what historical injustices were perpetrated to establish Israel, its existence is fait accompli at this point, and the forceful ending of a generally internationally recognized state would have drastic international consequences. At the same time, the one question I've never seen Israel defenders answer in a proper way is; considering that Israel has in fact never claimed that West Bank and Gaza belong to it, who do they belong to? Israel still, in some weird vague way? Then why isn't it claiming them, or offering the inhabitants citizenship? Egypt and Jordan?

But those countries recognize them as a part of the State of Palestine. To some "Hamastan", in case of Gaza? Hamas is not claiming independence for Gaza. Are they completely out of jurisdiction by any state? This does not apply to any other part of the Earth apart from Antarctica, covered by an international treaty, and has not itself been defined by a treaty, so clearly this claim is just an attempt to create a new international status to some territory for the specific purpose of benefitting Israel.

The only answer that seems consistent would be that the territories are already a part of the State of Palestine, the Western countries are hypocritical in not recognizing it, and the only task would be making this situation into an internationally accepted reality. At the same time, it seems unlikely that this would happen strictly in this form, but one has to have some starting point to try and figure it all out.

At the same time, the one question I've never seen Israel defenders answer in a proper way is; considering that Israel has in fact never claimed that West Bank and Gaza belong to it, who do they belong to? Israel still, in some weird vague way? Then why isn't it claiming them, or offering the inhabitants citizenship? Egypt and Jordan

@Dean did an AAQC that answered this point: Israel actually did not want Gaza or West Bank, but stomped the Egyptians and Jordanians so hard in 67 and 78 that the Egyptians and Jordanians both renounced their claim/administrative right to Palestinian territories while ceding to Israels demands for peace/ceasefire and political recognition. Opponents of Israel state that the 1948 borders mark out Israeli territory, which is true. But 1948 borders also indicate what is Egyptian and Jordanian territory: Gaza and West Bank. Till now the Egyptians and Jordanians refute any claim, administrative or historical or ethnic, to Gaza or the West Bank, and the failure of the PA to govern their territory much less articulate what territory they actually claim is a reflection of Palestinian intransigence as opposed to Israeli oppression.

Jordan and Egypt renounced their claim to the territories when they recognized te State of Palestine, no?

Not really. Or at least, there are ulterior motives/incentives at the least.

For the Egyptians, it was likely to avoid having to take responsibility for the Palestinians in Gaza, and to keep an irritant in Israel's side that they could stoke or cool as a matter of leverage. Israel offered / tried to return Gaza to Egypt with the rest of the Sinai, and Egypt refused. If it was simply about recognizing a state of Palestine, they could have accepted and transferred authority to a SoP figure, but that would have entailed responsibility on economic/political/diplomatic fronts.

For the Jordanians, the renunciation of claims on the West Bank was a consequence of the aftermath of Black September, and as a way for the Monarchy to disempower the legislature. Most remember Black September as a civil war- and it was- but fewer remember that the Jordanian parliament was dominated by Palestinian interests because it was seating Palestinians based on the territorial claims of uncontrolled West Bank. By renouncing the claims, the Jordanian Monarchy was able to cut the Palestinian faction of the Parliament down to size and no longer the political threat it was.

Isn't it rather more important that they have recognized the State of Palestine than whatever their exact motivations were?

No?

The original question is who the territory belonged to. The answer, in most legal contexts, is no one, because there isn't a formal Palestinian state. It would have belonged to Egypt and Jordan if they'd taken it back. That they didn't want it back doesn't mean their recognition of Palestine at different times for different reasons didn't create a de jure Palestinian state. It may be de facto Palestinian territory, and will likely be de jure Palestinian territory in any future negotiated system, but until there is an actual Palestinian state, it's in many respects just stateless territory. The difference between it and other de facto states is simply that no one really claims it, not that the people who actually live in de facto states are also real states too.

You thought it a silly comparison probably, but the Antarctica treaty isn't the worse comparison. Another are the spaces in the middle of the great oceans. While it is indeed extremely uncommon on land, if no recognized state exists in an area, it belongs to no state.

Obviously the circumstances of the Palestinian territories that trying to treat it as empty terrain would be considerably different, but the constraints on that are much more a matter of politics and humanitarian law than sovereign territory law.

This does not apply to any other part of the Earth apart from Antarctica, covered by an international treaty, and has not itself been defined by a treaty, so clearly this claim is just an attempt to create a new international status to some territory for the specific purpose of benefitting Israel.

The internationally recognized status of Gaza and the West Bank were hammered out in the Oslo Accords. This status does not match the facts on the ground, but that's not actually Israel's doing -- it's that the Palestinian Authority was driven from Gaza, by Hamas. Gaza is (or was, until the current offensive) an unrecognized (including by Egypt and Jordan, who I believe recognize the Palestinian Authority) but de facto independent state. This is not some novel status; it happens every time some separatist movement becomes strong enough to hold territory. For another current example, there's Somaliland.

This is not some novel status; it happens every time some separatist movement becomes strong enough to hold territory. For another current example, there's Somaliland.

Not getting to whether the "de facto" actually means that much insofar as international law is concerned, the obvious difference would be that Hamas has never actually claimed Gaza to be an independent state, unlike the Somaliland government.

The proper response to the Hamas occupation of Gaza should be the Palestinian Authority, probably backed by an international coalition, asserting its de facto jurisdiction over Gaza, by force if needed. Of course there is a great variety of reasons why that's not happening, but the clear majority of those reasons are, when it gets to the roots, "Israel".

It is quite risible for Israel supporters to refer to confusion and chaos in Palestine when it's obvious that Israel isn't in any way willing to have the internationally recognized authority of the State of Palestine act as states normally attempt to do when some group is occupying a part of their territory, or have the armed forces that could even theoretically attempt it.

When looking at Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, I'm reminded of the 20th century history of the Indian subcontinent, wherein a war drew borders between India and (a combined) Pakistan, which then had a second conflict dividing it into the two Muslim-majority states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. I haven't seen a "three state solution" seriously proposed by anyone in power, but it doesn't seem implausible to me.

The problem with the three-state solution is the same as the problem with the two-state solution -- how to keep the Arab states from immediately making war on Israel and sending us right back to the start.

What is this place?

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.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats