@non_radical_centrist comments on "Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

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.

non_radical_centrist 1yr ago

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 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".

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.

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.

and stop supporting Israel until they withdraw within their internationally recognized borders

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.

Context

MartianNight non_radical_centrist 1yr ago

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.

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.

Palestine has been also attacking Israel non-stop for the past 60 years.

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.

non_radical_centrist MartianNight 1yr ago

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.

Because Israel has been occupying Palestine territory for more than 60 years!

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.

DaseindustriesLtd late version of a small language model non_radical_centrist 1yr ago

I gave those reasons, Israel is an important ally against Iran

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.

I think Israel can and should stop building settlements

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.

non_radical_centrist DaseindustriesLtd 1yr ago

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".

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?

Which letter?

In the piece I've linked in the previous message.

I guess that you, like many Americans, have internalized the spirit of denying the nature of your nation's relationship with Israel, so you are not well equipped to physically see some strings of text. It's painful for me to observe such insults to human nature. But okay, I'll just quote it in full.

Until Feb. 17, U.S. President Joe Biden had delayed making the usual post-inauguration ceremonial call to the Israeli prime minister. Washington insiders concluded that the apparent cold shoulder meant Biden had not yet signed “the letter,” which Israel routinely demands of U.S. presidents to ensure the United States doesn’t mention Israel’s nuclear weapons when discussing proliferation in the region or pressure the Israeli government to reduce its formidable atomic arsenal.

As described by Adam Entous in a 2018 New Yorker article, every U.S. president since Bill Clinton has, at Israeli insistence, signed a secret letter upon entering office that effectively pledges the United States will not “press the Jewish state to give up its nuclear weapons so long as it continued to face existential threats in the region.” Whatever policy the United States adopts toward Israeli nuclear weapons, it’s time it stopped this demeaning rite.

The consequence for U.S. policy has been that the United States does not press Israel to give up its nuclear weapons—when doing so would have been the only course consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy. However, Washington actively assists Israel, both diplomatically by quashing discussion of its nuclear weapons in international forums and materially by looking the other way at nuclear-related Israeli violations of law, including some within the United States.

This included pretending in 1979 that what was almost certainly an Israeli nuclear test in the South Indian Ocean, which was observed by a U.S. satellite, didn’t happen. Former President Jimmy Carter’s White House and its successors classified documents and debunked what was known, but the signal evidence is extremely compelling, as we and others have detailed in Foreign Policy.

Washington has voluntarily blinded itself by pretending not to know anything about Israeli nuclear weapons—and thus corrupted its efforts at coherent and constructive policymaking.

Perhaps the worst result of accommodating Israeli demands for such letters is that the U.S. government has voluntarily blinded itself by pretending not to know anything about Israeli nuclear weapons—and thus corrupted its efforts at coherent and constructive policymaking.

By maintaining this fictional ignorance within the government, when everyone on Earth who has the slightest interest in the subject knows the truth, the U.S. government has promulgated a regulation—described in the U.S. Energy Department’s Classification Bulletin WPN-136 on Foreign Nuclear Capabilities—that threatens government employees with severe punishment if they acknowledge Israel has nuclear weapons. Naturally, the regulation is withheld from public release. The government hides behind a stretched reading of the Freedom of Information Act’s exemption for documents that “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,” which the withheld material would not.

At former President Barack Obama’s first televised press conference, the late journalist Helen Thomas asked him whether he knew of any nuclear armed countries in the Middle East. Obama was already primed with the right answer: “With respect to nuclear weapons, you know, I don’t want to speculate,” as if an intelligent person couldn’t be sure. Such presidential statements provide guidance for the rest of the government. At a meeting we attended during the Obama administration, a senior state department official—an intelligent man—covered his embarrassment for following the party line by saying sheepishly, “personally, of my own knowledge, I can’t be sure.”

There is a myth that this charade is required because of a secret 1969 understanding between former U.S. President Richard Nixon and former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. Supposedly, she promised not to test a nuclear weapon and he promised not to press Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or give up its nuclear weapons.

The trouble with this conclusion, so confidently presented by historians and officials, is that Nixon and Meir spoke alone with no aides present, not even the ubiquitous Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and there is nothing in writing that reveals what they talked about. Nevertheless, successive Israeli governments have bluffed U.S. officials into accepting a supposed obligation to continue to protect their nuclear weapons from public disclosure or criticism.

The press occasionally mentions Israeli nuclear weapons, but journalists hesitate to ask a government official about the subject, knowing it is not helpful to a journalist’s career to venture into that territory.

A government that is not able to admit that Israel has nuclear weapons cannot credibly discuss the issue of nuclear proliferation elsewhere in the Middle East.

But the stakes are much higher at a time when nuclear proliferation in the region is a global concern and a growing risk. A government that is not able to admit that Israel has nuclear weapons cannot credibly discuss the issue of nuclear proliferation elsewhere in the Middle East. This leads to more foolishness. The 2010 NPT Review Conference voted unanimously to have a Middle East conference discussing the problems of a ban on nuclear weapons.

The day after his own conference delegate voted in favor of the discussion, Obama trashed the idea: “Our view is that a comprehensive and durable peace in the region and full compliance by all regional states with their arms control and nonproliferation obligations are essential precursors for [a ban’s] establishment. … We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel and will oppose actions that jeopardize Israel’s national security.” Although this secrecy-driven policy is what the Israelis insist on so they can maintain their ambiguity, it isn’t at all clear that it is to Israel’s ultimate advantage, as the scholar Avner Cohen has argued. It certainly isn’t to the United States’ advantage.

One can imagine this statement’s effect on the credibility of U.S. pronouncements regarding the need to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons. U.S. credibility is critical because recently, the Saudi crown prince and the Turkish president have cast doubt on their NPT pledges not to obtain nuclear weapons, and Iran’s nuclear future continues to be in doubt. The idea of a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East is also not going away—the Egyptian foreign minister said Egypt will bring the issue up again in the NPT Review Conference scheduled for August 2021. Signing the letter would force a repeat of Obama’s performance.

In this respect, the behavior of U.S. officials appears to track with Israel’s famous policy of ambiguity regarding nuclear weapons. But there is a difference: U.S. presidents sign the letter, and the government keeps mum. But ironically, the Israelis find ways, without mentioning the word nuclear, to brag about their nuclear weapons.

They have their own triad: nuclear-tipped land-based missiles (of French design), nuclear-capable aircraft (U.S. design), and advanced German submarines armed with Israeli long-range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. When the last addition to their submarine fleet arrived from Germany in 2016, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of the devastation this submarine could wreak on Israel’s enemies if they were to try to harm the country. You can’t inspire fear if you don’t give adversaries an idea of what you are capable of.

The United States has put itself in a ridiculous position. If Israel wants to maintain ambiguity about its nuclear arsenal—whether for national security or domestic bureaucratic reasons to avoid scrutiny—that is its business. But the United States’ acceptance or rejection of a muzzle on what it can say is now Biden’s business.

The United States is trying to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It cannot credibly or effectively discuss the subject without acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons too.

There may have been a time when revealing Israeli nuclear capabilities might have produced a seriously adverse reaction from the Soviets, perhaps assisting nuclear weapon programs in Arab states, but that time has long passed. The United States is now in the process of trying to keep Iran from developing the wherewithal to obtain nuclear weapons. Washington cannot credibly or effectively discuss the subject without acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons too.

The letter Israel expects all U.S. presidents to sign supposedly speaks of U.S. protection so long as Israel faces “existential threats”—which raises the question of whether Israel still faces any such threats, especially after the landmark 2020 Abraham Accords and other agreements with key Arab states. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in his Senate hearing, spoke of Israeli security being “sacrosanct” as if it were a David surrounded by Goliaths.

It is time to update Washington’s thinking. Israel is a powerful, nuclear-armed state—stronger than all of its neighbors combined. The United States’ credibility and standing as it seeks to prevent further regional proliferation are more important than indulging Israel in a charade that undermines U.S. interests.

Eetan DaseindustriesLtd 1yr ago

gag order on Israeli nukes.

No need to bring something so obscure, things like anti-BDS laws are something completely surreal that can, unlike question of official recognition of Israeli nuclear weapons, affect normies in their daily lives.

The law came under fire in October 2017 from both Democrats and Republicans[citation needed] as Dickinson, Texas required Hurricane Harvey victims who applied for disaster relief funds to promise not to boycott Israel.

Try to explain to non-American (or to average normie American) compulsory pledge to do not boycott Israel - they will just refuse to believe it is real.

BTW, since this is another Israeli/Zionist thread, I recall you were once wondering about origins of Christian Zionism, about sudden and surprising replacement of traditional Christian attitude to Jews ("children of Satan") with modern one ("our beloved elder brothers").

In Protestant world, important figure was one Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, How he happened to be as influential as he was?

Being a “born again” preacher did not preclude Scofield from becoming a member of an exclusive New York men’s club in 1901, either. In his devastating biography, The Incredible Scofield and His Book, Joseph M. Canfield suggests, “The admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C.I. Scofield.”

That someone, Canfield suspects, was associated with one of the club’s committee members, the Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermeyer. As Canfield intimates, Scofield’s theology was “most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer’s pet projects—the Zionist Movement.”

This man, Samuel Untermeyer. Very important person in his time, far from mere "Wall Street lawyer".

He figures prominenly in many wild conspiracy theories, was supposed to blackmail the president and be the mastermind behind American entrance into WWI.

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/52658-two-us-presidents-among-many-celebrities-blackmailed

About a century ago, the 28th US President Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) was reportedly blackmailed by a noted lawyer Samuel Untermyer of Messrs “Guggenheim, Untermyer and Marshall,” who had tried to extort $40,000 from the American head of state in relation to an affair Wilson had with a fellow professor’s wife, while he was teaching at Princeton University.

The blackmailing lawyer had visited Wilson at the White House on March 4, 1913.

In his book “The History of the House of Rothschild,” author Andrew Hitchcock has shed light on how President Wilson had budged to the blackmailer’s demand of appointing a United States Supreme Court judge on his recommendation if he paid $40,000 out of his own pocket to the woman with whom Wilson had an affair.

Consequently, on June 4, 1916, a Jew Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) was appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Wilson as per his agreed blackmail payment to Samuel Untermyer three years earlier.

Justice Brandeis had gone on to serve the US Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939.

(Wilson's relationship with Mary Hulbert Peck is confirmed historical fact, the blackmail tale originates from Benjamin H. Freedman of dubious reliability.)

Now, back to Scofield. His only biography paints him rather unflatteringly, as typical American huckster and con man, not humble servant of Christ.

Still, the mind boggles how could such, unimpressive and obscure at the time, character be invited into such prestigious group.

The club’s purpose as noted in Article I, Section II of its Constitution, was: The primary object of this Club shall be to promote social intercourse among journalists, artists, and members of the musical and dramatic professions, and representatives, amateurs, and friends of Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts: and at least one third of the members shall be connected with said classes.

Since the theatre was taboo and worse in the circles where Cyrus had moved since 1879, we assume and we think rightly, that someone felt that Scofield could qualify in the literary catagory. But, that qualification could hardly have been on the basis of Scofield’s literary output up to that time. There must have been anticipation.

The club’s Literary Committee, when Scofield’s application was presented, included Samuel Untermeyer (1858-1941), a notorious criminal lawyer. Untermeyer’s accomplishments, described in Who’s Who in America9 take up more than two columns. There is not one activity listed which would suggest that Untermeyer could have appreciated either Scofield’s Bible Correspondence Course or his magazine The- Believer.9 Untermeyer’s life was so remote from the circles in which Scofield normally moved, that we must remain amazed that Untermeyer would have given Scofield the “whiteball” rather than the “blackball.”

...

Scofield kept up his membershp in Lotos until his death in 1921. The membership was not referred to in any obituary or eulogy. (The Dispensational community knew nothing of it!)

The selection of Scofield for admission to The Lotos Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion which has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C. I. Scofield. Such direction probably was motivated by concerns remote from fidelity to the person, work and truth of Jesus Christ.

Big if true. If confirmed, nothing else can be said than: well done, well played.

What is this place?

Why are you called The Motte?

New post guidelines

Rules

Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats