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 believe that would be the case if there was a legitimate, good-faith effort to bring the two populations together and live in peace. It'd be a complicated process that required a lot of time and effort, as well as participation from the international community - you would of course have to have protections against retributive genocide. It wouldn't be easy or free of complications, but I think it'd be much better than the current apartheid situation.
This is incongruent with the population of Gaza being given political power. Even if Israel for the last 50 years had engaged in solely defensive actions, accepted mass bombings as a thing that happens, and never did any counterstrikes, the Arab Palestinians would still try to genocide them.
How exactly do you know this? Do you have access to some kind of magical or scientific device that lets you understand people so well that you can definitively state how they would act in an alternative reality that's extremely different to our own? I personally don't think that the jews are such awful people that living near them for fifty years with no problems or violence would make people want to exterminate them. That said, you've left a few things out - would there still be an apartheid state? Would there still be settlements on Palestinian land? What exactly do you mean by "solely defensive actions"?
We know this because that is what Palestinians say they want to do and what they have attempted to do at every opportunity.
I'm sure that if you asked the jews of Auschwitz how they felt about Germans they would say and attempt to do many of the same things - is that evidence that the Jewish people are evil murderers full of hatred who need to be exterminated? It isn't terribly surprising that the man holding his son's lifeless, headless corpse won't talk positively about the people who murdered him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you hold yourself to this standard on baseless conjecture? How exactly do you know that the Palestinians will "live in peace" if they are fully integrated with a single state solution? The Gazans, who voted in the Kill all Jews Party, will just get along in Israel if they have representation? The ultraorthodox Jews who have been seizing land in the West Bank will be ok with sharing? What is your magical or scientific device that indicates Gazans will play nice, when have they ever done? What happened in other ME states, like Jordan and Lebanon, that accepted in large numbers Palestinians? What evidence do you have a one state solution would turn out well?
Israel: a nuclear armed state, with 5th generation jet fighters, top tier intelligence agencies. If you are wrong about integrating Palestinians into the Israeli state, and all current and historical evidence points to you being wrong, you will hand all of this over to the people who voted in Hamas.
The alternative world proposed above is so incredibly different from our own that I don't believe we can really draw an accurate picture of what happens in it. In the world being described there's no nakba and no system of apartheid. The Palestinians aren't just violent for no reason, they have a clear set of grievances with Israel and the USA that are extremely comprehensible, and those grievances simply do not exist in this hypothetical. The proposed world is so different from our own that I don't think it's really possible to draw meaningful conclusions from it - there's a very decent chance that 9/11 and the various US wars in the middle east also don't happen.
I believe that if you remove the causes of their grievances they will no longer be as disposed to violence. If you look back in history, there was a population of Palestinian jews who lived in the area without violence - there's actually direct historical evidence of Jewish and Arabic Palestinians living together in peace. Peaceful co-existence is possible, and a far more desirable state than what we have now.
I do not believe Israel should be a nuclear-armed state. I'm more than happy for a united, single-state Palestine/Israel to have the Mossad shut down and their nuclear weapons disarmed in the same way South Africa's were.
Well there are a bunch of European Jews there now, they understand they themselves are the grievance you describe. And there are several orders of magnitude more evidence that they all won't get along. So someone has to win, and I prefer it to be the ones who currently have nukes and F-35s. They also seem to be a lot more competent than the Gazans.
What else happened to South Africa? Something mean and competent is better to me than another shithole.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Egypt doesnt accept gazan refugees, and has previously rejected control of the territory. I believe they would reject it again. They know that it would then be their job to keep the terrorism in check, and they seem to agree that this is a shit job where people will hate you for doing whats necessary - even without the preexisting hostility they have towards their current rulers, and with the prestige of saving your arab brothers.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying re: Egypt, but I don't know how that's relevant to the situation at hand. Palestine would be self-governing, with no need for Egypt to do anything. That said, who knows what Egypt would be like in that world - without the US interfering to help out Israel, the counterfactual Egypt is likely very different to our one.
Palestine as is, and as was ca 1970, can not self-govern in a way that keeps the terrorism in check. If some government could do that, it would drown in international support. Egypt is strong evidence for this, because their options would be strictly more than those of a local government, and they still dont think they can do it.
My belief is that the violence springs from the grievances of the Palestinian people, and that this single-state solution would address the majority of those grievances from which the terrorism springs. I don't believe that the Palestinians are inherently violent and evil subhumans incapable of existing in polite society. The Irish and the English were fighting for a long time, but now that the Irish grievances are being addressed peacefully the terrorism has stopped. I see no reason why this can't happen in Israel/Palestine.
Wait, would they be self-governing, or share a government with the Israelis? I think youve gone back and forth.
If they were magically placed somewhere where they cant interact with Israel, and theres noone they can blame for this event, I think theyd mellow out over 50 years or so. In the real world, it would take a kind of denazification on steroids, and whoever does it would be branded much worse than Israel is now.
Democracy with full franchise. They'd be sharing a government with the Israelis, but both them and the Israelis would be voting for it. I just don't think a two-state solution is viable.
I believe that if there was a serious, good-faith effort to bring the people together and achieve peace it could be done. Would it be easy and simple? Of course not - but I think it would lead to a much better outcome than the current state of affairs, or where that state of affairs is leading.
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
In my opinion, the polity that is non-Jewish inhabitants of that territory includes a majority of people that cannot tolerate the existence of Jews (or Christians) in their vicinity. My evidence for this is that such populations in adjacent states populated by persons similar to Islamic Palestinians have also been ethnically cleansed or genocided over the last century.
In other words, we have centuries of evidence that polities consisting of Arab Muslims are evil, and Palestinians hew closely to the norms of said polities. In fact, they often embrace them to the extreme.
OTOH Israel's response to the provocations of its neighbors has been historically judicious, particularly given their military advantages. If they wanted, there would currently be zero Palestinians in Palestine. But not only that, zero Jordanians, zero Syrians, zero Lebanese. This is similar to the US in Iraq/Afghanistan. Our error was in being too concerned with casualties, when in war they often are the point.
Casualties, and humiliation. The failure of Afghanistan for the US was in trying a consultative approach, putting in local leaders who would exercise the necessary political authority to stabilize the violent tribes while staying their hand in conducting pogroms and massacres. The peace of the Taliban was an imposed one by the rifle, just as the peace of Timur was one of the sword and the peace of Shah (can't remember which one) was imposed by the Raj. Humiliation and subjugation destroys the root of a poisonous tree, and while the soil will grow another cursed plant later on, it will have to take a new form and promises at least a generation of brittle peace as it grows.
Israels peace with Jordan, Syria and Egypt would have failed were it not for their own internal coups. Israel may not have flown the star of david over Cairo, Damascus or Amman, but their internal rebels did, and that is itself enough to incentivize peace while buying time to deal with internal struggles. Israels light touch is not what rewarded it with peace, the incompetence of its enemies is what gives Israel each of its future days.
There's little evidence that those countries will exceed Israel in competence anytime soon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Have you looked at the history of the region before Israel? Palestinian jews were more than capable of living in peace with Palestinian arabs, and even in the earliest stages of the conflict the Palestinian movements called those jews their brothers.
When you start talking about how entire populations are just inherently evil you have departed from reality and polite society both. You can adopt this position on the motte, but you're forever in the same category as the Nazis and the white nationalists. If you want to support ethnic cleansing and genocide, you're free to - but good luck advocating this murderous and hateful belief to the rest of the world.
I could say the same about Rome's judicious responses to the provocations of the rebellious hebrews. The Romans treated them so incredibly well, even to the point of building roads and aqueducts for them - but those ungrateful Jews just kept violently attacking them for no legitimate reason. Maybe the Jews were just inherently evil and full of hatred for Italians - after all, there were centuries of evidence proving that the Jews just kept on attacking the Romans unprovoked! If the Romans wanted, there would be zero jews living in Judea - but they were just too nice, too generous and too concerned with the casualties of their enemies. What moral titans!
Under the Ottoman rule peace was enforced via subjugation. The Muslims were content to let the Jews and Christians live so long as the Muslims remained supreme.
The Arabs are right now celebrating their victory over the Jew and promising endless Oct 7, and immediately after Oct 7 we had the NY DSA and elite universities rush to celebrate the slaughter, complete with swastika signs and giddy promises for more slaughter. You are free to castigate those supporting the moral position of an Israeli state exercising the right to defend itself, but your own moral position is shared by loathsome belligerents that would rape murder and flay you apart, in that order only if you're lucky.
I'd assume the lucky order is where they murder first.
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