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 -
This recent article from WaPo via their local reporters is filled with anonymous and Unnamed General claims, so I take it with a grain of psyop salt, but its the first time I've seen a WaPo-like outlet assert that the food aid is important to Hamas operations with any specifics attached.
Taking control of the food distribution is the first yuge strategic decision that Israel has committed to following the invasion. If aid supplies are as critically important for Hamas as reason and reporting implies, then this is actually a plan to judge. Hamas can subsidize motivation with martyrdom, but even fervor requires sustenance. Assuming Israel doesn't starve everyone to death -- which I don't expect they will -- then the NGOs will cave before famine. They will submit to Israel's request to manage all the aid distribution and Israel takes full charge of the grain doles. I guess it is technically more accurate to call the GHF an American group sanctioned by Israel for aid distribution, but, is anyone under the impression there's any real difference in this case?
Which, until that happens, Gaza and the responsibilities associated with managing will increasingly fall to Israel. Until it finally becomes governance. Sure seems to me they wanted to avoid that outcome and may have even procrastinated decisions in hopes of an alternative. Israel left Gaza not 20 years ago. There's no winning. Not even if they defeat their enemies do they win.
At the moment Israelis may shrug callously at the idea of governing Gaza. Certainly not with any measure of goodwill or with any concern for headaches that are associated with that responsibility. Until I see the yet-to-be-seen viable alternative actually come into existence, then that's what the future looks like to me. Alternatively, Hamas has enough recruiting power to be fed by Israeli aid distribution while continuing to lead the forever war. I doubt it.
Does Israel actually want to be the ones distributing aid? It was my impression that they kind of like the current situation, where Gaza mostly starves but it's not their fault directly (they can blame the UN and other NGOs for doing a bad job of distribution inside Gaza, which is admittedly an awful job with terrible logistics and security implications).
Yes, because they can prevent it from being directly hijacked by Hamas. (What hamas fighters do to Palestinians who take food to homes outside of Israeli-controlled safe zones is different, but that's a lot less efficient for Hamas than just seizing/being handed the aid while it's still loaded on the trucks as the UN was doing).
No, because that way Hamas controlled the aid and could continue to starve the population while keeping all the goodies for themselves to enable further armed resistance/rebuilding after the ultimate end of the war - and it will end, because the IDF doesn't have the full-time soldiery to keep up this occupation without calling up large numbers of reservists and disrupting the civilian economy.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know. The March-April blockade ends with Israel propping up, scaling, and now supporting its own sanctioned distribution network. The GHF posts daily press releases. Today's message is the same as yesterday's:
“As we exceed 91 million meals delivered to the people of Gaza to date, we are taking a moment to reflect on the adversity we’ve overcome for this herculean humanitarian mission. Our aid staff and local partners have demonstrated tremendous courage and commitment to those in need.
“Looking ahead, we will not stop until our mission to feed as many Palestinians in Gaza is accomplished. We are also offering to distribute UN and other international organization aid for free — we have the scale and operational efficiency to feed more Gazans, and we encourage all humanitarian groups on the ground to partner with us. The people of Gaza are depending on us and we cannot let them down.”
Israel wants to at least threaten a commitment to solely manage aid distribution. If you think "ceasefire talks" are serious, and Israel is going to sign a deal for some hostages, pack up, and go home, then this is simple leverage to speed that process along. If you think ceasefire talks are not very serious, and to me this appears very possible, then this may be the start of the long haul. It looks like one stage of a plan than it does negotiating leverage, but I'm open to other interpretations. If the UN does hand over its trucks to the GHF I'll be more certain.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link