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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think it's a "steelman" to soften their actual beliefs, though. They want all the Jews to either leave Israel or die. They are quite explicit about this. They literally make children's shows teaching this. To steelman that view requires you to elaborate reasons why, all things considered, this is a reasonable view to hold. Your response appears to be something like "there's no meaningful difference between Israel's government and Hamas, so their positions are just equally bad." That's not a steelman, that's ignoring inconvenient facts in hopes of strengthening an objectively outrageous position.
Bullshit. In the first place, there never was a "Palestine" to exterminate. Furthermore, the Israelis have repeatedly demonstrated their ability, if they so chose, to militarily conquer not only Israel itself but much of the neighboring territory as well. Israel has treated the Palestinians with kid gloves for decades.
More bullshit. There's nothing symmetrical here; the Palestinians wish to kill all the Jews. Do you seriously not understand this? If Israel's goals were "symmetrical" to those of the Palestinians, all the Palestinians would already be dead. You are not steelmanning anything, you are literally making shit up.
How the fuck is that not meaningful? That is often, perhaps always how nations decide "which side" to support (though nations are also at times wrong about what will make something a "worse place," in the end).
But never mind that; we have an absolute laundry list of economic and political reasons to support a productive and educated first-world democracy over a couple of terrorist cells whose aspirations toward theocracy are often not only explicitly anti-Israel, but explicitly anti-American. To say nothing of the events of October 7, which are independently sufficient evidence that every civilized person everywhere should regard Palestine as, if it is a state at all, only a terrorist state.
Palestine is not a country in any particularly meaningful way, and it never has been. It is two separate terrorist groups living on the largess of other nations within the borders of Israel, actively oppressing their own supporters for theological reasons. Writing as though we were dealing with an oppressive colonial nation-state and its equal-but-opposite conquered territory demonstrates either ignorance, or willful ignorance.
And the IRA wanted Northern Ireland to be part of the Republic of Ireland. And this you may note has not happened. What the goal of an organization is and what they can be persuaded or forced to accept can be very different things.
Your pov would tend to indicate that a peace process would be pointless in NI because the stated objectives of each side were contrary. Well yes, that is why it has to be a negotiation!
What is probably true is that support for Hamas from within Palestine has to reduce. That was the problem the IRA faced, the slow removal of discrimination against Catholics, meant fewer and fewer of them had strong reason to support the IRA, rising living standards made them wealthier and then the IRA made a few clear mis-steps which crushed their support among their own demographic. That is why the IRA in 98 accepted a deal they had been offered and rejected 20 years earlier. The fact Hamas and the PA rejected a solution in the past does not mean it will never be acceptable to them.
The problem is of course, is that the UK had to dial back their aggression against the IRA and Catholics for that slow boil to subside. They had to do that BEFORE the IRA were willing to negotiate. Even when that meant the IRA was able to operate more freely. Internment was working to reduce the number of attacks, but it was also radicalizing more Catholics. The Peace process could never have gotten started with it still in place.
The playbook from Israel would probably have to include stopping or curtailing the various settler issues, lifting the various controls on who and what they allow into Palestine and to go hands off. To be clear that would almost certainly mean in the short term more attacks, more rockets, more Israeli deaths. And they would have to do this without retaliating beyond those that actually carried out said attacks, and not treating them as attacks from a nation but simple criminal cases where you arrest and prosecute the offenders. Turn it into a police action not a nation state one.
Then in about 20 years or so, time and a slow reduction from boil to a simmer, would have slowly reduced the hate and anger levels. Now the question would be, why should Israel be the one that would have to accept these risks for some uncertain reward of possible peace. And the answer is they don't. But unless they are either willing to genocide or be willing to sacrifice, then this situation is just going to repeat forever. And as the richer, more powerful state with vastly greater state capacity they are the only ones that stand a chance of doing it. The IRA were not capable of the unity that would be required for them to have played the British role in the peace process, as demonstrated where they immediately split into a multitude of fractured squabbling "Real", "True" IRA's.
Does Israel have to play that role? No. Are they morally required to? No. Are they the only ones who can? Yes.
Regardless of the moral situation, I really think the only long term solution is going to require Israel to be willing to absorb attacks, even though morally they are under no real requirement to do so. Probably it will pay off for them long term, but that is a very, very hard sell in the now. If Israel or the US can also put pressure (or outright bribe) Egypt to send in peacekeeper troops so that Muslim police can catch and punish Muslim perps then so much the better.
The IRA wasn't the catspaw of multiple Muslim countries populated by people with a millennium-old grudge against any non-Muslim living within the boundaries of the fullest historical extent of the caliphate.
I mean--genocide either way would also be a long term solution, and it is the one to which the Palestinians have repeatedly returned despite the number of times Israel has unilaterally assumed the cost of de-escalation.
The IRA comparison is misleading at best, because Muslim extremists are a totally different kettle of fish. I simply cannot take seriously any analysis of what Israel should or should not do that does not 100% foreground the deep religious commitment of these people to the specific proposition that the Jews should die:
The IRA wanted a certain political outcome, and weren't much bothered by the idea of killing to make that happen. But "independent Palestine" is not really the goal; it is at best instrumental to the goal of removing unbelievers from holy lands by any means. Persuading them to accept a different goal means fundamentally altering their religious convictions--not something Britain really had to achieve with the IRA.
My credence on the possible success of your proposed plan is less than 20%. Pre-October, I might have given you even odds, but murdering a thousand people in a single night, raping women, kidnapping hundreds of civilian hostages, that's way past IRA shit.
The IRA was funded varyingly by the USA and the Soviets. As cats go, I think they outrank the Muslim Middle East.
And absolutely, my plan is contingent that Israel is unwilling for whatever reason to go full genocide. That would indeed be a final solution. Which is one of the reasons they almost certainly will not do that. America being their supporter is another.
And I also agree that my plan is more likely to fail than succeed. This is not an easy situation to resolve. Contingent on Israel not being willing to commit genocide, what plan do you think has the best odds for success? I can't think of many. Short of kicking the can down the road again at least.
As for the Islam thing, well while my expertise is more Pakistan than Palestine, my experience is that absent the direct pressures to increase religiosity (and again we see the same thing in NI, where both sides are more religious than the norm), that will fall away, if there are fewer trigger events for Hamas to rally them around. In other words they are not angry at Israel because they are Muslim extremists they are Muslim extremists because the conflict with Israel (and the West more broadly) is used as a recruiting tool and to reinforce the in group.
Again, I'm not saying there are high odds, but my experience with Muslims is that most of them are about as much Muslim as most of the Christians I know are Christian, i.e. not very. But the conflict with Israel is used as weapon to propagandize young Muslims. If you can de-escalate that, then you can also make that weapon less potent. This whole thing is a cycle that feeds on itself.
Islam is not really the issue here, it's a symptom not a cause. I've been in contact with extremists of all stripes (the precursor to Prevent when I worked in government) and most extremists are very similar. The cause is malleable. It is almost always some event or situation that causes their transfiguration.
That said, I would completely agree that trying to crack open the rest of the Middle East so as to try and stop some of that support and direction would also be helpful. Many of the Arab nations are willing to use Hamas as a weapon against Israel but are not exactly friends with Palestinians. Iran is also an entirely different kettle of fish, but it's probably possible to try and split their attention as well.
"But realpolitik interests have largely taken over since the late 1980s. Iran gradually came to support Palestinian armed groups as an integral part of its regional security policy to contain and preoccupy Israel which, along with the United States, it has long perceived as the greatest threat to its security and domestic stability. From this viewpoint, a group’s Islamic credentials (or lack thereof) mattered less than its willingness to confront Israel. As a result, for many decades Iran, a self-styled Islamic Shia republic, has supported a plethora of secular, leftist, and Sunni Islamist groups."
There are some wedges there, Iran cut funding to Hamas after a spat over Syria before, so it isn't impossible for this to happen again. And note how while the pretext is a shared religion, it is very much realpolitik concerns that drive Iran. Same way the US supports Saudia Arabia despite the clear cultural and religious differences.
Again to be clear I am not saying this has a huge chance for success, in fact I would say your initial pre October 7th 50-50 shot would have been very charitable even then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, the steelman is, they were there first, so their impolite request that those who arrived later leave or die is more reasonable than "we believe our ancestors lived here 2000 years ago, so move over, you Arabs are all the same anyway". If some Seminole terrorists start blowing up retirees in Florida, my reaction will not be 100% "what fucking savages", but "they kinda have a point" as well.
Just because they didn't have a flag doesn't mean it didn't exist.
They weren't there first. Why isn't your reaction to the (re)creation of Israel, "what fucking savages" but "they kinda have a point" as well? Because 2000 years is longer than 400? Or 50? My whole point is that it doesn't matter if the Palestinians "kinda have a point" about being told by their government, "sorry guys, time to move." What matters is what they do about that; what they have repeatedly chosen to do about it is not to pursue peaceful solutions, but to pursue the solution "murder as many Jews as we can, say we're sorry so the international community suppresses Israel's response, then prepare for the next opportunity to murder as many Jews as we can."
You have assiduously avoided addressing this angle, at all, in your responses. This is, at best, a botched "steelman" grounded in simply omitting relevant facts. What it feels like is just completely dishonest engagement.
Ah. Well, if stand up comedy is the level at which you engage with history, that would explain a lot of what you've written here.
The Palestinian Declaration of Independence was written in 1988. Prior to that, both Arab and Jewish nationalists in the 20th century helped to overthrow the Ottoman Turks in hopes of creating their own nation, but Britain and France did not follow through on those expectations. The region has been ruled from afar for just about all of recorded history, albeit mostly by Jews, then Muslims, and occasionally Christians. Although many Jews were driven from the region by Hadrian (and others), there were always some who remained. By the early 19th century, many had begun to return.
But once more (since you're apparently ignoring it every time I write it anyway): it doesn't ultimately matter who has or had a flag, or whose ancestors were from where (though don't think I don't notice the rhetorical trick of making conveniently inconsistent claims about what counts as being somewhere "first"). What matters is that there is a group of terrorists pretending to be a "nation" for the express purpose of killing as many Jews as possible, and that this is (contra to your bizarre claims) in no way "symmetrical" to a democratically elected government doing what it can to respond to the mass murder and rape of its people by Muslim Arab terrorists pretending to be a "nation."
I think you have it backwards. Their express purpose is not killing as many Jews as possible, it's the only means that is left to them that has a non-zero chance of succeeding for the purpose of creating a sovereign Palestinian state. If the next PM of Israel says, that's enough, this whole idea is stupid, I've bought the Gascoyne from Australia, we're packing up and moving there, do you think Hamas will complain that they have no way to obtain Australian visas to continue killing as many Jews as possible?
And since it doesn't matter who was there first, then both nations have an equally valid claim to the land and can fight each other to their hearts' content. Just because Hamas cannot afford a proper army doesn't mean they aren't allowed to resist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Exceptionally bad example, since the Seminoles post-date European colonization of Florida.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link