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 -
No? The case isn't undermined by the fact that Israel has allies. Why would it be? It would be seriously undermined if Israel didn't have allies. Allies make you stronger, and right-of-conquest is about being strong. This isn't some kind of faux chivalry thing where it only counts if it's a fair fight between equals.
The whole point of my argument about right-of-conquest is that, when it comes down to the quality of life of the people who actually have to live there, it doesn't matter how you came into possession of your new territories. Right-of-conquest is just an acknowledgement that you do possess those territories and that you aren't going to give them back, so the sooner everyone accepts that the sooner everyone can get on with their lives.
At the end of the day, most of the borders that we accept as lawful were only drawn over the strenuous objections of the defeated. Having allies often helps you win, and many of the borders that exist today were drawn by coalitions of powerful nations. The Dutch are independent from their larger neighbours, France and Germany, in large part because the British kicked the French out in 1815 and the Germans out in 1945. The Dutch certainly didn't defeat either France or Germany in some kind of absurd no-allies-allowed fair fight. They made a strong ally over religious ties and shared interests and that strong ally backed them up when it counted.
Almost all modern wars are fought between coalitions of allies, and both the Israelis and Palestinians have drawn on coalitions of more powerful allies in their various conflicts - just as Israel's allies often draw on its support in their various conflicts. In fact, if anything, Israel is almost unique among modern nations in that it fought some of its wars without the support of allies, an extremely rare event in the modern era.
The alliances among European powers have always been motivated by mutually beneficial arrangements. Shoring up strength, border security, weakening a common enemy, avoiding a two-front war... Israel's conquests provide none of that to the United States. During the Cold War there was maybe an argument to be made, but with the benefit of hindsight there is no question that this "alliance" has done more harm than good for the average American person, notwithstanding the average American political leader who has undoubtedly benefitted from vocal support of the "alliance".
There is a strong case to be made (included summarized elsewhere in the thread) that the "alliance" with Israel was and continues to be motivated by Zionist influence in American government and culture rather than any commensurate strategic benefit. The Palestinians are not our enemies, at least they weren't until the alliance with Israel.
More importantly, Israel has failed to resolve the Palestinian question after decades of military dominance and occupation. And it has failed to do so at enormous cost to the rest of the world and in particular the European sphere. Middle Eastern wars have been disastrous for the West, and hot conflict with Iran is looking more likely than it did a couple of years ago. None of this is in Western interests, this "alliance" is a farce.
Western interests should compel a single-state solution precisely because Jewish nationalism has failed to conquer in the most meaningful sense of the word. There are too many uncertainties, instabilities, and externalities hanging over the Israeli occupation to humor the notion of "right of conquest". If they declare such a right then the West should withhold further military aid and maintain neutrality.
Well, the foreign policy administration of the US Government disagrees with you on that. Now-President Joe Biden once made a speech in which he argued that Israel is "The best $3 billion dollar investment we make," and that “If there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one to make sure our interests were preserved.”
You could argue that he was lying for some reason, and that he actually thinks Israel is a bad investment but is trying to mislead the American people. That strikes me as a bit too conspiratorial to be true. I don't think the US Government has that many layers. It would require that Joe Biden, current president of the United States, is funnelling huge amounts of government money into a project that he secretly believes is bad for America, in order to support a foreign country, for some reason. You could also argue that he thinks that what he's doing is right, but that he's wrong. That's certainly possible, but then it becomes self-defeating; if the United States supports Israel because the President thinks that's good foreign policy, but he's actually mistaken, that would be pretty normal. World leaders sometimes make mistakes. It certainly wouldn't make the alliance somehow illegitimate or unworthy of consideration.
Supporting Israel is in-character for the USA. They support lots of countries in order to spread their influence around the globe. They've supported South Vietnam, South Korea, West Germany, Taiwan, various South American military dictatorships, and let's not forget about Ukraine. They've put bases in Canada, Japan, and Germany. They like to have leverage they can use to exercise control. None of this means that South Korea ought to give up and let Korea be reunited under the Kim family, or that West Germany should have fought a one-on-one grudge match with East Germany to decide once and for all who should get to form the united German government. The whole point of American power is that they can use their advanced training and military hardware to pick winners, ideally without putting American boots on the ground.
You're saying that "Western interests" should "compel a single-state solution," but, like, why? The Palestinians have nothing to offer the West. The result of a one-state solution would be a sudden regime change as the Islamist majority inevitably elects a new Islamist government in the new state of Palestine. Do you think refugee crises and regional instability would be less likely after a genocidal Islamist government takes over a previously Jewish-majority nuclear power? If so, why?
If there's one thing you can say about Israel, it's that they definitely won't nuke Istanbul. I could not say the same about Hamas.
I am aware that the foreign policy apparatus of the US Government disagrees with me, but that's sort of begging the question. Look at, for example, the mass overrepresentation of Zionist influence in the architecture of the Iraq war. So saying something like "the foreign policy administration of the US Government disagrees with you" doesn't really engage my argument that American foreign policy interests are captured by Zionist influence, and a massively disproportionate of American foreign policy elites have strong loyalty to a foreign power! When in history would that sort of dual-loyalty be tolerated?
Joe Biden pandering to Israel by boisterously claiming that billions of dollars in handouts to Israel is the "best investment we make" would be strong evidence for my conclusion. Interesting that Biden symbolically downplays American interests and domestic investment by calling its handouts to Israel as the "best investment it makes."
I do agree, though, that American support for Israel is in-character for the USA. After all, there is probably no demographic more supportive of Israel than white Evangelicals, and that support is at its foundation built on superstitious belief in biblical prophecy and a subsequent high-regard for Jews as God's Chosen People... But the regard that white Evangelicals have towards Jews and Israel is not reciprocated, as there is no demographic that Jews hold in lower regard than white Evangelicals. The foundation for this "alliance" does not at all rest in sober-minded, strategic vision.
It's motivated by lobbying efforts of a a hugely influential portion of the American elite with dual-loyalty, combined with a religiously-brainwashed American base of support that blindly supports Israel based on biblical prophecy. It's in-character for the USA, but it's an indictment of that aspect of an American culture rather than a rational justification for the state of affairs or an explanation for why this alliance is so strategically important.
Those things have been the outcome of decades of the status quo. Zionism has had ample time to solve these problems and demonstrate its value as an allied stabilizing-force in the region, but it's utterly failed in that task. The future is not looking better. Why would we double down on just constantly deferring to Israel's insolence? I don't see an Islamist government as a likely outcome of a single-state solution. There are other compromises like Jerusalem being internationally administered.
Do I think Israel will nuke Istanbul? No. Do I think Israel would turn the Middle East to glass before it faces a genuine military threat? That's possible enough to scare me far more than Hamas nuking Istanbul. And it's scary because I know I cannot trust the American foreign policy apparatus to stop Israel from taking the entire Middle East down with it if it faces an actual threat to its "conquests."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link