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 -
Most Israeli jews dont have a second passport. Theyre for the most part, born and bred in Israel. If anything, some have a passport to Russia. Thats about it.
You propose military invading a nation and then that nation not responding? Is this not ridiculous bad faith? If you invade a nuclear armed nation, why are you even remotely surprised in response? Europe would deserve a nuke or two if they were that stupid.
The world didnt bring Israel into this world? What are you even on about? The British limited immigration to Palestine during the Holocaust. America embargoed Israel from 1948-1962, onlyproviding weapons sales when they also sold to Egypt. The British and Americans tried to limit arms going to the Israelis during the war of independence. It was the Soviet Union, France and Czechoslovakia that allowed arm sales to israel that helped the Israelis win. The israelis arent dependent on arms sales any longer.
I mean....if Israel uses a nuke, it means they already made the rational calculation your going to destroy their survival. Why not use a nuke if thats the case?
And you would station European troops inside Palestine and Israel?
Europe cant even defend its borders, and you want it to manage a conflict in the middle east? Youd have 7-8 million angry Israeli Jews doing an insurgency, and possibly 5 million Palestinians, because they would not likely react to European forces being maintained there positvely.
Yes...50 years ago. Not today. No one is going to war over Gaza or the West Bank. No one cares enough. Not Egypt. Not Jordan. Hezbollah is content lighting some rockets on fire at the Israeli north.
And Ive just explained why enforcing a solution just to make an even bigger mess for almost no gain seems ridiculous. There is no regional war going on for the West Bank and Gaza. Why do you propose a military solution to something that doesnt even matter to Europe? Why do you propose a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict at all, when no one in the Middle East cares enough except for Iranian proxies which mainly focus on attacking Israel?
You also seem to think most of these military operations in the Middle East are for israels sake. They arent. Israel was neutral about the invasion of Iraq. No Netanyahu wasnt Prime Minister even though he was in favor during the time, Ariel Sharon was. Israel didnt care about Gaddafi in Libya. Houthis are being bombed because they attack all shipping going through the red sea, not just Israeli. Almost none of these military operations are for Israels sake. Israel fights alone usually, at most relying on foreign arm imports when necessary, and rely on domestic arms manufacturers when it can.
I mean they mostly have. The West Bank doesnt explode in violence. The only reason Gaza became such a handful was that Israel chose to leave it. Why pray tell, should Israel deoccupy the West Bank and Gaza when the history has shown that they are contained when Israel has military control, and the region doesnt ignite on fire without big political moves.
For someone who wants less problems for Europe, it seems very counter intuitive to desire a possible military action against Israel and enforce a failed Palestinian state, which would likely set up a regional war when there isnt one anyway.
From what it sounds like, you seem to think Israel is a weak little state that will fold at the drop of the hat. They arent. They are the Middle East's Prussia. A military with a state.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth... Israel is this invincible Middle East Prussia, but then at the same time Israel's survival is threated by a Palestinian state. Which is it?
Forcing Israel to accept a two-state solution is not going to destroy Israel. It might destroy some expansionist ambitions fueled by fanatical belief in biblical prophecy. And that's a good thing, that has not been good for the region.
That's why Israel would capitulate. If the entire world is pressuring Israel to accept a two-state solutions, with EU peacekeepers to put down any troublemakers on either side to make it happen, there's no reason to humor the notion of Israel nuking Europe.
This is a whole other debate. They publicly had one position, but privately they funneled bogus intelligence about WMDs to the White House, including claims like an Iraqi spy supplying a 9/11 hijacker with Anthrax while in Prague. Israel pushed this intelligence in October, just a month after the WTC and anthrax attacks.
Because the US/EU has no control over Israel yet we are responsible for and impacted by what happens in the Middle East. When the Yemenis shut down shipping lanes, it's the problem of the United States. You've already explained why a regional war in the Middle East would be a catastrophe for Europe, so why do you keep asking why the US/EU cares what happens there?
If it were up to me, there would be a one-state solution with equal political rights between Israelis and Palestinians, and constitutional protections for any minority groups. But you would regard that as a bigger existential threat than a two-state solution. So the reality is you have no solutions, you are demanding we accept the status quo, or demanding we accept an ethnic cleansing of the region which will destroy our credibility and myths surrounding our own hegemony. The international community is getting tired of it, and yes they brought Israel into this world with a vote. That's the sort of origin story that gives the demands of the international community a lot of weight.
I have to say, the very idea of lethargic, cowardly Europe trying to occupy Israel is about as unserious as it gets. Europeans don't even have the political will to defend their own back yard in Ukraine, let alone shed blood in the middle east. Besides, how do you suppose "EU peacekeepers [...] put down any troublemakers" such as Hamas, any better than Israel can? As in, technically, how? Your track record in fighting guerillas isn't very good.
More options
Context Copy link
The international community recognized Israel. They did not bring into existence. You can partially thank the Arab states for expelling their Jews for that. Without the million or so Mizrahi Jews from the Arab states, Israel would not have survived. The international community did not build up Israeli institutions, and for the most part, did not give the Israelis out of good will. The British and Americans embargoed the Israelis.
Neither side even wants this. And not to mention, that a one state would look like Lebanon. A failed state run by either religious Zionist militias or Islamist militias. Add in nukes, and youve successfully destabilized the middle east for another several generations. Very divorced from the realities of wanting stability and peace.
More options
Context Copy link
I have not been clear. A Palestinian state would not jeopardize the existence of Israel. However, when a Palestinian state fires rockets over Israeli population centers, you hit a red line for what the Israelis will be willing to take. There is only so much duress they will be willing to live under.
You want the EU to project force out of Europe to make israel capitulate, when they cant even find the will to help Ukraine against Russia?
A failed Palestinian state, would lead to a regional war. As it currently stands, the Houthis will end their stupid attacks on shipping once the Israeli war in Gaza ends. We would not be having this discussion, if Israel had just kept up its occupation of Gaza. There would be no war in Gaza, no massive civilian deaths. That is what is likely if a Palestinian state is made in the West Bank. Not a political solution or peace in anyway.
I say, yes accept the status quo. Why not accept the status quo of Israeli occupation? The current Gaza war is only because Israel left Gaza. If Israel hadnt left and ended the occupation, it would be all quiet on the Palestinian front.
I dont say accept ethnic cleansing. I dont want that. Im saying, a failed Palestinian state will resolve into ethnic cleansing. Notice, I mean failed. There is a possibility for success with a Palestinian state.
A successful Palestinian state will have to be at least 20 years down the line. Reform the PA. The PA is a corrupt govt, like very badly corrupt that siphons off most the aid given to it. Gradually deradicalize the population. Make economic incentives that intertwine the economies of Israel and Palestine.
An economic peace must come first, than a political peace. Once that is established, we can talk about a Palestinian state.
As I see it, an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank will just result in more fighting. Just like Gaza did. That will result in a regional war and more death and instability in the Middle East. Better for the occupation to continue than for chaos.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link