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 -
Imagine if any other foreign group were so outright in tying financing to their state interests. Israeli/jewish control over the US isn't even hidden at this point.
As for support there really only are two support bases for Israel in the world, zionist jews and American evangelical boomers. Israel has never been popular in Europe, latin America or Asia. The support base for neoconservatism is largely a generational thing. Young Americans are equally split between favoring Hamas and Israel and that is in a country that is more hardcore zionist than Israel.
The almost fanatical support for a foreign nation that is culturally alien was never organic. It hinged on carefully controlled media narratives. Once people in Palestine got phones and their images could be spread around the world Israel was inevitably going to lose public support.
The lack of support in Europe is more of a symptom of declining Christianity. When Jodan was in charge of the west bank they didn't allow Chrstian pilgrims, and that dispute goes all the way back to the crusades.
More options
Context Copy link
Anti-BDS laws are definitely evidence that they do exert policy power. But perhaps just not overwhelming. And definitely not today, when Dems are in charge, it seems.
But still, two carrier groups to that area, more munitions to Israel, etc. the US has her own interests in the ME (that are already being targeted and hit by Iranian-backed militias), so there's that reason too.
What are you talking about? A recent symbolic Senate resolution:
Passed 97-0. Passed the House 412-10 (6 voted present).
And also meanwhile: "President Biden has asked lawmakers for almost $106 billion in funding for Israel, Ukraine, countering China in the Indo-Pacific, and operations on the southern U.S. border."
The mainstream Democrats and the American deep state are ridiculously in the tank for Israel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Antony Blinken is basically embedded in the Israeli government at this point. The American insistence for Israel to delay ground invasion is reportedly so America can move "defenses" into position in the case of a regional outbreak of war. The delay is to allow America to become directly involved.
Then the Israelis basically get to decide if America gets involved in a regional war with how they escalate the conflict.
Perhaps the influence is two-way, much like the factory staffed by only a man and a dog. Israel can pull the US into a quagmire, but the US gets to insist they hold their horses.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They get more foreign aid than any other country. All politicians more or less have to bow to Israel. Lots of American politicians openly say they are Israel firsters. There is an absurd overrepresntation of jews in the american elite and people have gotten fired for not supporting Israel. American aggression toward Syria, destabilizing Iraq and decades of involvement in the middle east has been a tremendous gift to Israel. Even when Israel is mass bombing cvilian areas the US is flying in weapons and stationing air craft carriers off their coast.
The relationship is unidirectional. The US politicians go the wailing wall and bow to their rulers. Blinken is openly running policy for his ethnic interest.
Like who?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you want to do things without daddy's approval, stop asking for daddy's money and daddy's protection? How many countries get a carrier battle group deployed to their neighborhood as a token of solidarity, following a terrorist attack?
I'm on your side of this particular spat, but trying to paint Israel as an underdog with no support is ridiculous.
US troops are being hit in Iraq, Syria, etc by Iranian-backed groups, so it's not just Israel. Though the US isn't exactly doing a lot here to respond.
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, it is a small country, both geographically and in terms of population, and surrounded by hostile nations. It may be the bigger dog when looking purely at an Israel-VS-Palestine fight, but there are many tens of millions of muslims in the neighborhood who can pick up the pieces if Gaza should be wiped out, whereas if the same happens to Israel it's gone for good, unless you expect the Brits to manage a second Zionist nation-founding.
IMO both sides have good reasons to see their situation as precarious and themselves as the underdog, little sense as that makes.
More options
Context Copy link
The carrier battle group is not there as "a token of solidarity." It is there to dissuade other actors in the region from expanding the conflict, by reinforcing the idea that Israel remains formidable, in part because it has powerful friends who are willing to act.
Potato - potahto. They're pretty much the same picture.
No, they're not. The US has an interest in preserving the economic stability that would be threatened by a broader conflict in the Middle East which is independent of any interest in protecting Israel per se. Not to mention that, if the claims commonly repeated on here about the terrible effects of higher gas prices on the well-being of US citizens are true, preventing a wider conflict serves the interests of those citizens.
Imagine still trying to shill the "US military Intervention in the Middle East is due to oil, it's not about Israel" talking point at this point.
Okay. I'm imagining it. Your point?
And in case my point is too subtle, it's this: this is a snide and consensus-building way to assert "Actually, it's all about Israel." You may make the argument that it's all about Israel. You may not simply assert that anyone who thinks it's not all about Israel is simply a "shill."
So, I had to think about whether to warn you or give you a ban for this. The comment in itself is only slightly bad. But you've been tip-toeing up to that line for as long as you've been here, and you've been repeatedly warned about being a one-note piano, and your response has been to try to make the Joo-posting a little more sneakier but still, it's really all you ever post about, and you're frequently antagonistic when you do.
You have a fan club, and some people will be pissed off if we ban you and complain that we're just protecting Da Joos.
The fact is, you've actually been getting extra slack just because of your particular niche viewpoint and us bending over backwards to be fair-minded. So one more time: you can deny the Holocaust, Notice(tm)-post, and talk about (((whatever else you want))), but you need to follow the same rules of charity and civility as everyone else, and the more you keep banging that one note, the more we are going to notice (and respond) when you choose to be obnoxious about it.
Banned for two weeks.
(ETA: Typoed 13 days, but fine, you get a free 1-day reduction.)
More options
Context Copy link
How about engaging substantively, rather using perjoratives like "shill"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Unless you're writing all of this to imply the US would sell out Israel in a heartbeat, if it was in it's geopolitical interest, nothing you said seems to contradict my point?
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