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 -
The Crusades
I read Thomas Asbridge’s history of the Crusades recently. Its an excellent narrative history covering the theological and social developments that prompted the ‘armed pilgrimages’, the military campaigns, politics, and the changes in the Arab world that ultimately destroyed the crusader states.
A very brief history:
In 1095, the Pope called on Europeans to liberate the Holy Land from the Muslims in exchange for salvation. Over the next 150 years hundreds of thousands of Europeans, including kings, set off for Palestine and Syria. The timing was perfect: the First Crusade arrived at a point of maximum discord among the Muslims and managed to capture Jerusalem against significant odds. The Crusade’s leaders, always with an eye to personal gain, created 4 quasi-independent states. For the next century the small Frankish-Latin elite ruled over a religiously mixed native population and skirmishing regularly with Arab armies. In 1187, the Muslims unified under Saladin, defeated the crusaders at the battle of Hattin, and reconquered the Holy Land save for a few outposts. The second crusade was a damp squib, but the third – the “Kings Crusade” – was led by the Kings of England and France and succeeded in reconquering some of the lost territory.
From here it was downhill: The fourth crusade diverted to sack Constantinople (and critically weaken Byzantium), the fifth crusade was annihilated in Egypt, the Sixth crusade negotiated a partial return of Jerusalem, the seventh crusade was again annihilated in Egypt, and the eighth crusade attacked Tunisia of all places. While the Latins floundered around, the Mongols slowly devoured Mesopotamia and the Mamluks, slave mercenaries of Arab armies, seized Egypt. These two new powers fought over the middle east and as the Mamluk’s got the upper hand, they destroyed what was left of the Crusader states almost as an afterthought.
The critical factor that hamstrung the crusader armies was their leadership and rank and file wanted to fulfill their oaths to capture Jerusalem and so obtain absolution, not conquer a kingdom. Once a crusade arrived in the holy land, win or lose, the troops involved would immediately begin to go home. No sustained effort to recruit Latin soldiers for the long run was undertaken. The permanent, professional armies that did emerge were the military orders who developed their own internal logic and interests. The Crusaders made little attempt to manage relations with their neighbours to avoid conflict. It wasn’t fully appreciated at the time, but the existence of these small far-flung Crusader states owed entirely to (1) the lack of unity among the Muslims and (2) a set of theological arguments that could motivate Western Europeans to fight. Once the Muslim’s unified and Western European understanding of how sins were absolved changed (to wit: indulgences rather than pilgrimages), the Crusaders were doomed.
Israel
Does this remind you of Israel today? It does to me. The parallel isn’t perfect, but there are a few common elements that stick in my mind. Obviously, the location is the same. Israel is an outpost of the West. It’s a religious state which limits the extent it can peacefully coexist with its neighbours. Its existence, from 1948 onwards, owes to the ineptitude of Arab armies. At critical moments in its history, military aid from the United States saved it from defeat. Two peoples assert their right to land and both look to religious justifications to buttress their claims.
The disanalogies include Israel having populated its land with its people rather than ruling over an alien ethnic majority, Israel having nuclear weapons and a highly competent military (with exceptions, the Crusaders generally did not).
Nukes may always be the trump card of course, but it looks to me like Israel’s long term existence is precarious -- current economic and military power notwithstanding. A change of heart in the West or unity among the Arabs could easily spell its doom. Israel has a decisive technological edge over its enemies, but it draws its armies from 7.5 million Jews compared with a combined 149 million among its neighbours. If it came to a war of attrition and Arab resolve was (unusually) solid, Israel would be in trouble. I think the history of the crusades has caused me to update my priors on how Israel should behave to its neighbours. If it is playing the ultra-long game for civilizational survival, it has to find a way to achieve a peaceful settlement with its neighbours and the Palestinians. Because you never know when the winds will change: No one in 1177 thought that in 10 years Saladin would retake Jerusalem and no one in 1210 had heard of Mongols. The unexpected nature of history makes me think we should do a lot more geopolitical risk management than we do.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link