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 -
It’s an interesting question. To some extent, the only hope for Israel in the long term is Arabs caring less about Islam and Islamic pride. That is far from impossible, at least in my opinion, but it is also (very) far from guaranteed. On the other hand, a combination of nukes and a mountain of artillery aimed at Seoul (and China, but it’s not really about China anymore, which seems if anything wary of Pyongyang even if it doesn’t want the US military on its border) have preserved the North Korean state.
The only long term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict geopolitically is to hand the Palestinians over to a Muslim power under a quasi-suzerain relationship. Whether that is realistic is anyone’s guess. If it happens, I’d say the Israelis are in a much better position in the long term, as the Palestinians would likely be slowly demilitarized and increasingly distributed through the Arab world.
If Israel is destroyed, it will be because hubris led it to be established in the Holy Land. Not just Jewish hubris, but substantially it. When Israel was imagined in the late 19th century, the Arabs were a docile people under the absolute rule of Christian Europeans. Early Jewish Zionists believed they could become colonialists of their own, and they did; they could not imagine the end of empire would be so swift and so brutal, let alone that the Islamic revival that has occurred over the last five decades, would actually threaten a Jewish state in any permanent way.
Why would the rest of the world accept a massive refugee exodus from Palestine?
Yes, the arabs have repeatedly made it clear that they don't want palestinian refugees due to past complications (Egypt, Jordan, Muslim Brotherhood etc).
Why on Earth would they facilitate massive ethnic cleansing Palestinians? Even if Palestinians were amazing refugees they would absolutely refuse to assist ethnic cleansing.
Cash. All the proposals from the Israeli right for ending the Israel-Palestine conflict by population transfer assume that the US chips in c. $100 billion or more to bribe other Arab countries to accept Palestinian refugees. Israeli GDP is about half a trillion, so it is right at the limit of what Israel could afford if ending the conflict by population transfer was broadly popular in Israel, which it isn't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Point of order: while there were some parts of southern and eastern Arabia under British control in the 19th century, Western imperial control of the Levant didn't happen until the 20th (specifically with the conquest of the Ottoman Empire in WWI by the British and French, who carved it up into Syria/Lebanon/Palestine/Transjordan/Iraq).
More options
Context Copy link
Mostly under the Ottoman Empire. The Arab countries become British and French "mandates" after the Ottoman Empire is defeated in World War One. British General Allenby was the last Christian to enter Jerusalem as a conqueror in 1917. The British press promptly referred to him as the "last crusader".
Nominally, but many nominally Ottoman provinces were under the effective control of Europeans, like Egypt.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link