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 -
This is the number of dead that they're able to verify, which is extremely difficult for a variety of reasons. There's another 10000 that are missing and can safely be presumed dead as well, and I believe about 90000 with severe injuries. I don't think we're going to get true or accurate casualty numbers until after the war ends, and even then I have my doubts.
I have seen too many photos of dead Palestinian children to give the story that little credibility. On top of that, Israeli murder of children is common enough even outside the conflict that there are a lot of reports of it from the west bank as well. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/19/west-bank-children-killed-unprecedented-rate
If you've got a comprehensive debunking of the x-ray claims I'd like to see it, but I've seen enough direct video footage of these kinds of attacks that I can't just brush the claim off wholesale, especially not on the basis of vibes rather than citations (admittedly a bit hypocritical of me given that I'm not posting the evidence I'm talking about either, but I'm sure you can understand why I don't save and archive all the videos of children being graphically murdered that I see).
https://x.com/FranceskAlbs/status/1858304872963010840 Franceska Albanese makes the claim here.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-idf-palestinian-prisoner-alleged-rape-sde-teinman-abuse-protest/
There are countless claims from released Palestinian prisoners that rape and sexual abuse was endemic in Israeli prisons - and Israelis themselves (including high ranking government officials!) have protested any attempt to hold the perpetrators accountable.
It makes very little sense to accuse Israel of genocide/ethnic cleansing if you claim that you we don't have a reasonable sense of the numbers of civilians killed. What are you even basing the accusation on then?
The article doesn't give any evidence. I'm not saying none of this happened, but I think it's very likely the Guardian would simply reprint potentially made-up stories without any due-diligence, so long as they paint Israel in a negative light.
I'll have a look. I'm also interested in direct video evidence of Israelis shooting infants in the head.
Albanese's whole thing is being cartoonishly anti-Israeli. If she was at least providing evidence that might mean something, but her simply repeating the claim means very little.
I wouldn't remotely put it past Palestinian prisoners (who are mostly terrorists) to simply make things up to try and make Israel look bad. Such propaganda is a core pillar of their strategy. But sure, every accuser has a right to be heard. Perhaps Israel really does treat prisoners that badly. This really doesn't add much to the argument that Israel is carrying out ethnic cleansing/genocide.
So that this debate doesn't get derailed into a series of speculations about the veracity of individual accusations against Israel, it's worth reflecting on the path of this discussion, which seems to be following the typical route with anti-Israel individuals, which is to accuse them of genocide, and when challenged to defend that position on the basis of the numbers, pivot to a mass of unsubstantiated claims of supposed Israeli atrocities. All those atrocities could have actually happened, and they still wouldn't support the ethnic-cleansing argument.
ETA: Some links RE the x-rays:
https://www.quora.com/Do-Israeli-soldiers-shoot-Gazan-children-in-the-head-as-has-been-recently-alleged/answer/S-Meltzer
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2024/10/the-weaponization-of-medical-misinformation-and-the-war-in-gaza/
https://honestreporting.com/new-york-times-guest-essay-shredded-online-after-claiming-idf-targets-gazan-children/
Francesca Albanese's report to the UN. I know you said that she is "cartoonishly anti-Israeli" but if you can spot any lies in here that I missed feel free to point them out. There's actually no point relying on the number of civilians killed to identify genocide or ethnic cleansing, because by the time those figures tell you that a genocide is occurring it is already too late to do anything about it, and the point of identifying genocide/ethnic cleansing is to make sure it doesn't happen again.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/genocide-as-colonial-erasure-report-francesca-albanese-01oct24/#_ftn37
I highly recommend giving it a read - there's a mountain of citations, and there are even a whole lot more photos of children with bullet wounds in those citations as well. That said the report is extremely long so I'll refrain from just posting the entire thing here, but it represents my position on the conflict very well. There are mountains of evidence with regards to the genocidal intent and actions of the Israeli government, even if you just go through the citations of that report. When I read a report about IDF soldiers killing themselves because they can't live with what they've done in Gaza, or how they can't eat meat anymore because they ran over so many people with a bulldozer and saw the "meat" come out I find it very hard to believe that nothing's happening. When Israelis chant "School's out in Gaza because all the children are dead" to try and intimidate people in Amsterdam, I find it very hard to feel sorry for them.
For what it's worth, I don't find the argument about whether or not Israel is actually a committing a genocide to be that interesting - the answer is just so clearly and blatantly yes. Attempting to make the claim that israeli protests against enforcement of rules against raping prisoners are just made up by evil terrorist prisoners when I've seen the video footage just makes me feel like you're trying to insult my intelligence. Even one of the debunking links you gave me is so nakedly partisan that is has two giant DONATE TO ISRAEL NOW buttons on it - I may as well link to the Daily Stormer as proof that Israel is bad.
I like these conversations a lot more when the Israeli side is willing to admit that they're a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs - when you're willing to admit that there are actual conversations that can be had. Will Israel's plans actually work? What are the long-term consequences going to be? Does ethnic cleansing actually work without any downsides? Does international law exist at all? Those are all much more interesting topics, and as an added bonus I don't have to look at gore of dead children or picture hundreds of people getting crushed with a bulldozer in such a gruesome way that it made one of the drivers kill themselves later.
This is just an appeal to authority. If there are particularly compelling arguments, you can reproduce them directly here.
So there's no point gathering evidence to support your claim? That's a bold position to take.
That's not really an argument. I could just as easily say the answer is so clearly and blatantly no.
I think your mask might be slipping here. But I'm not surprised you like these conversations more when your opponent just admits you're right and they're wrong. You do have to do the work of convincing them first, though.
Incidentally I'm curious as to where you get the idea that Israel is intent on ethnic purity. You do know that 20% of the population is Arab, right?
More options
Context Copy link
I too like conversations a lot more when my opponents are willing to accept my most uncharitable and cartoonish representation of their point of view as accurate. It's so bizarre you would suggest the Israeli side should just admit that they are evil and monstrous and start the conversation from there that I am genuinely not sure whether I missed the subtle irony you're conveying.
I'm basing my view of the Israeli side on direct quotes from high-ranking government officials and widely respected international legal bodies. The United Nations and the ICC are both making this claim, and so is the Israeli government. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-29/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-people-of-israel-will-settle-gaza-netanyahu-ministers-urge-palestinians-expulsion/0000018d-5495-d1b6-aded-5fdd570c0000
One of the sources that I linked in my post was a report by the UN stating that what Israel is doing is genocide. This morning the ICC issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for war crimes/crimes against humanity. IDF soldiers are killing themselves because they're unable to live with the memories of what they've done. Blood-drenched may sound hyperbolic, but how else can you describe reports of somebody bulldozing hundreds of people alive to the point that they're unable to eat meat anymore because it reminds them too much of what's inside people?
Just to clarify, I didn't say they were evil. I'm not interested in moral discussions like that, which is why I posited those alternative questions in my post. None of them revolved around the morality of what's happening, but you can't even begin to talk reasonably about the topic without being honest and admitting that Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza (as their government has repeatedly admitted, and as the UN has repeatedly accused them of).
I'm pretty sure the UN and the ICC did not say "the Israeli side is a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs." Though it is probably what a lot of people in those organizations think, given the hostility they have traditionally shown towards Israel.
As I have said before, I don't particularly have affection for Israel, but to say the Israelis are the bloodthirsty medieval ones, living next to who they do, seems disingenuous.
Well, you might not have used the word "evil," but you all but called them worshippers of Khorne, so come on.
While this is debatable (kind of like "genocide" - if you are going to invoke the UN and international bodies, then the precise and legalistic definition of words matters), sure, I will provisionally agree that that's what they are doing. And even say that I think what they are doing right now is pretty bad.
My point here is not that I think Israelis are the good guys and how dare you criticize them, but that the history there is a lot more complicated than your simplistic, straight-from-the-mouths-of-Hamas version of Israeli history. I find conversations more productive when people are actually able to steelman their opponents as rational human beings acting out of motives other than pure malice or blind fanaticism, and if that's all you can imagine as what motivates your enemies, then either your enemies really are monsters, or you are probably failing to understand them (or you are doing so deliberately because you hate them and it is more pleasurable to believe they are monsters).
Yes, I said that my view was based on those things, not that I was just directly quoting them, and I don't think any individual element of that description is inapplicable. Even pro-Israeli partisans admit they've killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, including women and children - “There are no schools in Gaza, as there are no children left.” was proudly chanted by them in public. I think that more than justifies the charge of "blood-drenched", and it puts in some work when it comes to justifying "bronze-age" as well. Netanyahu himself has referenced Amalek and what their god tells them to do to Amalek with regards to the current conflict, and I believe the Amalek-Israel dispute does actually date back to the bronze age. As for ethnic purity, Israel proudly advertises itself as a state for Jewish people and has laws which back that up - I can't think of any other nation that allows for DNA testing to determine whether or not you can immigrate. And as for conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs... I've been watching that happen on the news and social media for months now. I've already provided quotes from Israeli settlers planning on settling in the now-cleansed north of Gaza.
I've based my views on quotes straight from the mouths of Likud officials, not Hamas. As I said, I'm not condemning the Israelis as evil (I don't think calling a state evil really has much meaning) - I'm just taking them at their word. I think that they're motivated by ethnonationalist impulses, and multiple Israelis have simply told me this to my face in other discussions. Until you face the reality of what Israel has done and is doing, you're not going to be able to have a meaningful conversation about it - that's what I meant by preferring conversations where the Israeli partisans just admit that Israel is actually doing what it proudly advertises itself as doing.
The moral valence only comes into play because in the modern era most nations saw an attempt at wiping out an inconvenient population and collectively decided that it must never be allowed to happen again, and that efforts at genocide are a collective stain upon humanity. I'm very partial to that belief and I'm not going to deny that I'm opposed to the genocide of the Palestinians, but at the same time...
That's precisely what I'm doing. I can understand the logic behind their actions - I disagree with their reasoning, but I can understand why they believe the things they believe and do the things they do. An accurate depiction of what they're doing sounds like evil to the majority of humanity, but that's not a reason to mince words.
Edit: Just to clarify, I think that calling a state evil is indeed meaningless. But having a widespread and justified belief among the rest of humanity that what you're doing is evil is very different and much more consequential.
Out of curiosity, have you actually read any books about the history of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do you think you could accurately summarize both the Israeli and the Palestinian positions in words that they themselves would agree with? Of course there is no single "Israeli" or "Palestinian" position, which is part of my point below, but even narrowing it down to the militant partisans on either side?
Who is them? The footballers in Amsterdam?
It's undeniable that tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. There is no war, especially one happening in an urban environment, where lots of casualties weren't women and children. This doesn't make their war just, but it does make it unexceptional. Nor are the Israelis exceptional in having some drunken footballers chanting terrible things and soldiers in the field sometimes getting up to stupid and offensive grunt shit to amuse themselves.
That would require you to describe them as they would describe themselves. Do you think they would describe themselves as "a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs"? Again, you aren't using the word "evil" but you're clearly saying, in not so many words, that they're evil monsters and there is no other way to explain them.
Also, Likud is one political party in Israel whose popularity waxes and wanes. They do not speak for the Israeli state and the entirety of the Israeli citizenry. This would be like taking some of the Republicans' most extreme statements and saying they speak for Americans. (Which of course is exactly what they and their enemies would both like to claim, but it doesn't make it true.) Much has been made of Netanyahu's "Amelek" comment. Netanyahu is a sort of Trump-like figure in Israel - he has a lot of supporters, especially after 10/7, but a substantial portion of the Israeli's population hates him. Think of all the outrageous things Trump has said, which a sizeable portion of the American population would not agree with, and then claiming that Trump was clearly speaking for the American people, and reflecting what Americans think. In an abstract sense, this may be true (they elected him, after all), but at the same time, you'd be completely wrong in claiming he's channelling the American psyche and voicing what the average American thinks about everything. Netanyahu, and other militant Likud officials, are pretty open about despising Palestinians, and there's a sizeable portion of Israel that would just like the Palestinians to go away (who can blame them, after all this time?). But most Israelis do not want to exterminate Palestinians because God said to, and you know this and you know it's not an accurate characterization, you're just using that description because it makes Israel sound really super-evil.
"Motivated by ethnonationalist impulses" is rather different from "literally wants to commit genocide because God told us to," which is what you are claiming.
We have a number of white ethnonationalists here, and while sometimes they will admit that they would be okay with a violent solution to create the ethnostate they want, none of them would accept as uncharitable a description of their motives as the one you are claiming is the Israeli one.
Whether or not you believe ethnostates are bad, people (including Israelis) want them for reasons beyond "We hate other people and want to purify the Earth."
No, you are assuredly and absolutely not. Again, can I ask what books you have read?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you link the x-ray pictures you considered credible, so the debunking would be more direct?
Minus specific pictures, a comprehensive debunking is not complicated. The Israelis generally use 5.56mm NATO rifles for their regular troops, and 7.62mm NATO sniper rifles and machine guns as support weapons. The physics of these rounds are well-known, and you can, right now, go to youtube and watch a functionally unlimited number of examples of what happens when a roughly skull-like object is struck by one of these rounds because "shooting skull-like things with a rifle" is an entire genre of video entertainment at this point. The short version is that when skull-like things are struck by an assault- or battle-rifle projectile, they explode from the transferred kinetic energy, and the bullet continues on its merry way.
In order for the bullet to stop dead inside the skull, it needs to be moving very, very slowly. It's possible to get a bullet moving that slowly if it was fired into the air and comes down a great distance away, but this would make deliberate aim impossible. It's also possible for a bullet to expend almost all its energy penetrating some obstacle, and then hit someone on the other side with a marginal penetration, but again, this would no longer be aimed fire.
It is almost certainly not possible for a sniper to be shooting kids in the head in a way that the bullet stops in their skull, positioned properly for a photogenic x-ray. It would be trivial to fake such a photo, though.
For what it's worth, if you've got video evidence of the attacks, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-doctor-interviews.html
I'm just going directly with the story posted by the NYT. I tried looking for a debunking of the story, but the only ones I could find were on websites with huge DONATE TO ISRAEL NOW buttons which made me a bit skeptical of their motivations. I believed the story because there's a huge number of people talking about what they saw treating casualties in Gaza, and it is consistent with all the other reporting I've seen come out of the region. There have been multiple reports of Israeli soldiers killing Palestinian children for several years, and I don't see why the current circumstances would make them stop doing that.
I do not. I honestly have no desire to go looking for footage of children being gruesomely murdered, no matter how much it might strengthen my argument on an online forum. I'm aware that this is a dodge, but I'm sure you can appreciate that not only is graphic footage of child murder extremely hard to stomach, it is also banned by almost all major platforms and is frequently removed after it gets too "popular". I regret seeing the clips that I have seen and have no desire to repeat the experience.
These three images are found in the article: 1 -- 2 -- 3
None of these images show gunshot wounds. These show children x-rayed after a bullet was placed beneath their heads or neck.
These are radiological findings of actual gunshot wounds to the head: 1 -- 2 -- 3
Image searching "cranial gunshot wound radiological imagery" is all you needed for the debunk.
Quoth the article:
That's damn bad luck she only had fakes to hand over. Guess we'll have to take her at her word, same for the journos and editors who applied I would estimate at approximately zero scrutiny and negative intelligence. On that note,
Nobody treating casualties in Gaza is a reliable source. The Israelis sure as hell aren't reliable either, but you are talking about the bleeding-est of bleeding hearts. These are people truly incapable of thinking about the conflict in terms any more complex than the immediately real of what they see treating the wounded. There is something admirable to those who go out of neither ethnic nor religious obligation, felt, implied, whatever. A white Catholic doctor treating those people, as I'm sure exists, is doing good, but they're never thinking critically. Critical thinking does not lend itself to going halfway around the world to treat war casualties. Critical isn't the same as clear, you know, they might be the clearest thinkers of all. Like, what the hell is everybody else thinking? People are dying and we can help. But if it is, that's warm, it's goodness, while realpolitik is frigid. If they're told an Israeli soldier shot the child they're treating, they will believe it, because they don't have it in them to doubt those who told them. Doubt would send them packing, but really, the doubt would make it so they never went.
This is a place for evidenced discussion and the evidence you provided is fake. To be clear, I don't believe you're commenting in good faith, I believe you're doing a good job at disguising mundane antisemitism. Namely because if you had seen as much graphic footage as you claim, you would know acute gunshot wounds to the head don't look like that. So either you're practicing sophistry in service of your point, or if I were to extend faith, it would mean you're too naive to yet comment on this issue, as it would be total indictment of your ability to assess the truth of things, such as your supposed videos. You take those bullet images uncritically, I must assume you take "graphic footage" equally uncritically. To match your anecdote, I've seen a lot of modern, graphic war footage over the last 15 years and I have not once seen a video anything like you describe.
So basically, pics or it didn't happen. Provide the video or stop citing it as though it has any bearing. I don't want to witness the child victims of war, but I've heard this so many times that I'd rather see it to know the truth of it than be forced to continue only speculating. I would certainly rather see it than take you at your word, because I will not take you at your word.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link