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 -
So put your cards on the table. Ukraine should concede Crimea to Russia, yes? It's unreasonable of Ukraine to insist on restoration of their original borders when Russia has historical ties to Crimea as well has having effective control over it for more than 6 years at this point. So by your own logic, it's Ukraine's fault that they're at war with Russia, because they don't want to negotiate peace by sacrificing their territory to the invader, which is an unreasonably inflexible position for a country that is being invaded. Did I understand your position correctly?
But for sake of argument, let's assume Palestina is willing to compromise. Do you think Israel would accept the original 1947 borders assigned by the UN? Or the 1949 green line which assigned the Golan heights, the Gaza strip, East Jerusalem and the West Bank to Palestina? I think there is no chance they would. This makes it obvious that Israel is just as guilty, if not more so, of obstructing a peaceful solution.
I think Ukraine has a much better chance at regaining their full sovereignty through military force than Palestine does though, so Russia would have to give a lot in their compromise. In my view there's a very low chance that Palestine's current strategy will even reverse the Israeli settlements, let alone lead to something like a single state that's majority Palestinian, or a two state solution with the 1948 borders. But I think there's a good chance Ukraine's current strategy will push things back to the 2021 scenario, and possibly even back to 2013 borders.
6 years is a lot less than 60 years. If Russia held onto Crimea for another 50 years, I would say Ukraine at that point should give up on ever reclaiming Crimea. I'd also say Taiwan and China should both give up on ever unifying, and North and South Korea should also both give up on ever unifying.
The current war started from Russia pushing far further than Crimea, not by Ukraine refusing to acknowledge Russia's sovereignty over Crimea.
I do not think Israel would. But I think asking for those, at this point, is asking for too much. Palestine went to war with Israel to try to expand their borders, and Palestine lost; there are consequences for losing wars like that.
I think these sorts of problems are tricky because there are a few different lenses to view this through. One lens is, what is the best possible world, even if it's totally unrealistic? Like say I was Prime Minister of Israel and magically had 99% popularity and for some reason 99% of the Palestinians also loved me and would go along with whatever I said in the short term, what solution would I propose that would lead to the best utilitarian outcome? I think I'd want all Israelis to leave the settlements, Israel signs a binding treaty guaranteed by a bunch of countries that they won't do any more settlements, Palestine gets that land back and is officially recognized by everyone as an independent country, Palestine's military is still limited for the next ~15 years, and Israel and the US pumps a ton of money in aid and infrastructure into building up Palestine.
But that just wouldn't ever happen. So another lens is, what is the best world that's remotely possible to actually happen and we should be striving towards making? I think it would be something like the Camp David Accords, where Israel gets to keep a lot of the settlements still. Because realistically, Israel is in a much stronger negotiating position than Palestine.
But if absolutely nothing else, I think Palestinians need to actually come out with a proposal for peace. Would Palestine even actually accept the 1947 borders themselves? There can't be any sort of compromise until Palestinian leadership comes forward with concrete demands. That they don't is fairly damning in my eyes.
Sure, but that's mostly because the U.S. and the West heavily support Ukraine, while sanctioning Russia. If the U.S. and the West heavily supported Palestine and sanctioned Israel, Palestine would stand a much better chance of repelling the Israeli invaders too.
You realize this is kind of circular reasoning right? “We support whichever side has a chance to win” combined with “whichever side we support probably wins” means you can choose which side to support almost arbitrarily.
Sure, but the attitude has been unchanged for the past 30 years or more. How many of the people condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine are on record stating that “I don't think Russia should have annexed Crimea but if they hold onto it for another 24 years they are allowed to keep it”? That certainly doesn't seem to be Zelenskyy's position, but I also don't hear Zelenskyy criticizing Israel for using effectively the same strategy in Palestine. It's self-interested hypocrisy.
And Israel is literally raiding Nablus as we speak, a city deep within internationally recognized Palestinian territory. How is that any different?
Not to rehash the entire history of Israel, but there were no Israeli borders when Zionists declared a Jewish state in the middle of a predominantly Arab area. The surrounding Arab countries (Palestine did not exist as a nation when Israel was founded) didn't take kindly to that and invaded. Yes, they lost, but again: this is basically the same argument of “might makes right”. And to repeat my position: if that's your view, then you cannot moralize about Russia occupying Crimea or Donbas.
If the Mormons declared Utah a Mormon state and drove out all the non-Mormons, would you think it strange if the U.S. sent in troops to take back the land? And if the Mormons somehow managed to defeat the U.S. military (let's say, with help from Mexico and Canada) and captured Colorado, Arizona and Idaho in a counter-offensive, are they now justified in keeping that land because there must be consequences for losing a war?
I'm just asking for some consistency here; I feel like most of the arguments people use in favor of Israel illegally occupying Palestine wouldn't fly if it was any other country invading and occupying any other country, and especially not for Russia illegally occupying Ukraine. I still haven't heard an argument how the situation is fundamentally different.
I don't think the logic is circular. We support Israel for other reasons. Similarly for Ukraine. I am not saying the US should provide military arms to Israel because Israel is stronger than Palestine; I think the US should provide military arms to Israel because they are important ally against Iran. And I think the US should provide military arms to Ukraine because they're an important ally against Russia.
Those countries being in those strong positions changes how other nations should act. When Palestine launches missiles at Israel, I think it falls under Talleyrand's quote of "it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake". Palestine gains nothing besides a feeling of self-righteousness by continuing the conflict. Ukraine does gain a higher likelihood of retaking its territory by continuing the conflict.
I think time changes things. If I was alive in 1945 and in the British government, I might speak out against carving out territory to form Israel. But 80 years has passed, things have changed. Like say we magically discovered a new continent in the Pacific Ocean with primitive peoples in it; I would speak out against modern nations conquering it by force and moving their inhabitants to reservations. And if it was conquered, I would want the conquerors to reverse their decision and give the land back. But it happening recently is important; I do not think the modern US should give back land it conquered 150 years ago to natives, or that modern Russia should give Siberia back to the natives there.
What are your opinions about what should be US policy regarding Israel/Palestine and Ukraine/Russia?
It would be nice to hear those reasons rather than the usual “of course invading another country is bad!” which is clearly not an issue when it concerns Israel, so it cannot be the true reason for opposing Russia. (That's assuming a lot of the Ukraine supporters are also Israel supporters.)
I don't disagree; at some point it's better to bury the hatchet.
But Israel is unique in that it's probably the only country in the world that has been flagrantly violating international law virtually non-stop since its inception. It's one thing to forgive someone who mistreated you 60 years ago, but quite something else to forgive someone that has been mistreating you continuously for the past 60 years and shows no willingness to do better in the future.
The U.S. should support Ukraine to defend against the Russian invasion, and stop supporting Israel until they withdraw within their internationally recognized borders. Opposing one invader and supporting another is a morally bankrupt strategy (I know, it's unreasonable to expect moral principle from any government, but you asked for my opinion, so I gave it to you).
I gave those reasons, Israel is an important ally against Iran(and other actors in the middle east), and Ukraine is an important ally against Russia. If you want me to give a full breakdown about why it's important to have allies against Russia and Iran I could, but it'll take me a decent amount of time to refresh myself and compile arguments and I think it's getting a bit off topic. Especially since my argument is not that "We should ensure the existence of Israel to oppose Iran", it's that "Given that Israel is not likely to cease to exist anytime soon, Palestine should pursue a strategy that is not trying to make Israel cease to exist".
Palestine has been also attacking Israel non-stop for the past 60 years. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to claims like "Israel just bombed a school and killed Palestinian civilians, they're evil!" if Palestine wasn't launching missiles from schools. I think Israel can and should stop building settlements, I don't think there's much else as a state Israel can do to stop abusing Palestine without jeopardizing their own national security. Individual Israeli soldiers sometimes commit abuses against Palestinians that are unnecessary and cruel, but that's only so much a state can do to prevent their soldiers from committing crimes beyond punishing them after the fact.
I don't think the US should support Israel because Israel is aggrieved, I think the US should support Israel because they're an ally that provides utility to the US. The US supports Israel for selfish reasons, like how it supports Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Ukraine is different because the US supports Ukraine for both selfish reasons(to oppose Russia) and selfless reasons(helping a people who're having their land stolen). That said if Israel got sufficiently bad, like they were rounding up Palestinians into gas chambers or Netanyahu declared himself a president for life, I think that would outweigh the benefits of supporting Israel. Personally, I don't think Israel's current actions outweigh their value as an ally.
Right, and I respect your position; it seems consistent. It does mean you make strategic considerations take precedence over moral principles like “internationally recognized borders must be respected”. It's fine if you think that way, but at that point, you no longer have the moral high ground: it's clear you're okay with violating borders when it's in your interest.
My complaint was that most people, including most world leaders, limit themselves to the moral argument: they support Ukraine because Russia illegally violated its borders. But their simultaneous support of Israel shows that it's a lie: apparently invading foreign territory is fine when an ally does it.
Because Israel has been occupying Palestine territory for more than 60 years! Why is it surprising that people try to fight off an invader? That's literally with Ukraine is doing right now. I'll grant you that a difference is that Ukraine so far has not attacked within (pre-2014) Russian borders, but the situation isn't quite comparable, in that the Palestinian claim to Israelian territory is much stronger while Ukraine has no claim to Russian territory beyond the recently-annexed territories.
The comment I originally replied to likened Israel to a big dog that snaps back at a little dog that has been harassing it for no reason. Again, this was an analogy based on a moral argument (it's acceptable to snap back after being bullied/harassed), but that analogy falls apart when you realize it's the big dog that was the aggressor in the first place.
Anyway, I think we've covered a lot of common arguments here, and I probably want to stop discussing this further. If you choose to reply I will definitely take the time to read what you wrote, but I may not respond to it.
The arguments do get a bit circular and confusing, and I think it's useful to take time to reclarify what exactly your argument(s) are.
For me, the facts are:
Israeli, Palestinian, and American leadership should be pursuing policies that first make their own citizens better off, and have a secondary but lesser priority of making people in other countries better off
It is in the interests of Israelis to enforce the current de facto borders and not allow for right of return to displaced Palestinians
It is in the interests of Americans to have a military alliance with Israel
Palestine is never going to militarily defeat Israel, especially not as long as America backs them and probably not even if America stopped backing them
Now, going off those facts, the Palestinian leadership needs to choose a policy that improves life for their citizens. The current strategy of "launch missiles at Israel" and "whine at the international community that Israel is violating international law" does absolutely nothing to improve life for their citizens. Therefore, Palestinian leadership should choose a different strategy. I guess you as an individual might not actually care about Palestinian citizens and you might think it's in your personal interests to have a stronger norm against invasion, so that's why you condemn invasion. Or maybe you just don't like hypocrisy, and consider Israel's taking of land to have happened recent enough that is should be condemned where as other land that's been stolen happened 150+ years ago so it's fine enough now.
This part goes in circles a lot too. Israel steals Palestinian land 80 years ago, so Palestine attacks Israel in vengeance, so Israel attacks Palestine in counter-vengeance, so Palestine attacks in counter-counter-vengeance. My point is looking at how Palestine loses in every cycle of vengeance and counter-vengeance, it's stupid of Palestine to keep playing the game, they should just fold and salvage what they can. And that as a first step, they should lay out some concrete demands that they would consider acceptable reparations, so at the very least negotiations can begin. I think what Israel's done is wrong in the sense they should pay a large amount of reparations. I don't think reverting to 1948 borders would be utilitarian, I think it'd cause a lot more damage than it'd help, on top of being something Israel would not actually agree to.
If Russia was in a vastly better military position, I think I would be calling for Ukraine to stop fighting and cede regions to Russia in exchange for reparations. But that is not the reality, Ukraine is perfectly able to get a better deal than what Russia's currently offering by fighting more, and I don't think Russia is unable to accept changing the de facto borders because of how many Russians it would displace.
I agree that this is getting a bit dull and there's not too much more point in replying.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is indeed unclear that the US needs an ally against Iran, or that there are significant reasons to continuously antagonize Iran, probably the highest human capital, oil-rich Muslim state, that do not amount to protecting Israeli interests.
You treat the US as the decision-making party here. IMO that's clearly wrong: Israel decides on the basis of its interests, and the US rationalizes support provided under lobbyist pressure.
It's telling that the official US position seems to be the same, yet it is so glaringly impossible to effect change that the topic is barely brought up. The same logic applies to the gag order on Israeli nukes.
US-Israeli relation is not a reciprocal alliance. Americans have about as much reason to fight Iran as Belarus to invade Ukraine. And it's as laughable to pretend that the US supports Israel out of geopolitical self-interest as to explain Iraq war with oil.
Iran does its own fair share of antagonizing the US, and I don't think would just peacefully be a good member of the global community if the US stayed away from there. Getting into a full debate on it would take a lot more research on my part into the full situation around Iran, at some point I just trust the people I agree with about other foreign policy issues when they say "Iran is bad".
Can I ask what you feel about the Foreign Policy argument on «the letter», and whether it increases or decreases your trust in the good faith of your authorities, or their ability to make choices informed by organic American interests?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link