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 -
Let's talk about Israel and Palestine.
Okay, I can hear you sighing already. But before you look away, let's talk about Clausewitz.
War is a continuation of politics by other means. In our ideological age, where everything is political, it may not seem profound: but it establishes a commonality between the military and civilian where analogies can be made. Like, 'what if we have no ability to fight a war, but continue it anyway?' Could we just... filibuster, our enemies, until they give us the political ends we desire?
This concept is similar to the Trotskyite concept of 'no war, no peace'. (That the policy ended in disaster and Brest-Litovsk bodes ill.) In the Clausewitzian model, war is conducted between states. The loser gives concessions to the winner, with the assumption that even a bad peace is better than a bad war, that ending hostilities - even for the moment - is the best way to bring about revanchist policy.
The differential between Palestine and Israel in terms of military capacity is greater than ever: it was never at par, even in 1948. Seventy-five years later and the Arabs might as well be Ewoks against the Empire. Not to say that they lack the capacity to harm the Israelis, but they have no military capacity to enforce political goals on their enemy. Even now, their demands for a ceasefire are entirely one sided: they are simply outmatched in every conceivable military dimension.
There exists a hope in the Palestinian cause, that there will be a tipping point where they can present to the international community of some Israeli atrocity that will bring about a external intervention. It is the only card they have to play. But now that Israel has control of the food aid that goes into Gaza with the ousting of UNWRA, time is no longer on their side. Their enemy will never consent to a return to the former status quo, no matter how urgently the international community chastises them.
Not coming to terms and holding on for maximalist goals may seem like a cheat in insurgency warfare. But inevitably, reality and physical limits intrude onto the nationalist fantasy. It is chutzpah of the highest order to rely on the charity and good will of your enemy to feed your people. This conflict - indefinitely sustained by Soviet leftist dregs of the anti-colonialist cause - will come to an end not through some master stroke of diplomacy, but a famine long in the making.
Hamas sought to use international sympathy as a weapon, relying on the services provided by American and European NGOs so that they could devote all the funds they neglected to invest in their civilians into their military. Now that military is destroyed, they have no leverage at all. The Israelis are not bluffing. They will not give in, no matter what the pressure. They are perfectly willing to watch Gaza starve until some entity comes out of the territory that they can negotiate with.
As Calgacus would say, "They make a desert and call it peace." Modern problems require Roman solutions. The fatal Palestinian mistake was that they always assumed Israel would come to the negotiating table. After fifty years of fruitless negotiation, the Israelis finally have had enough. There will be no more deals, no more bargains. Just the short, terminal drop to destruction.
If Israel starves all Gazans to death, there would probably be a severe international response. We are seeing consistent public opinion shifts against Israel already. Mike Huckabee’s recent shift is a telling example. There’s also been a general shift against Judaism among the public. The question is how much Israel can torture the civilians before there is sufficient moral pressure to make them stop.
Are Gazans starving ? Not yet at least. Not in the way we understand starving. At 5.8%, that would put it alongside stable middle-economy nations like Mexico, Thailand and Brazil. Most of Africa & the Indian Subcontinent are doing twice as worse. Gaza's tragedies, like Ukraine over-reported in comparison to mundane everyday evil that kills more people everywhere else.
What's left? To viewers on social media, Israel is already conducting a holocaust-esque genocide. Facts be damned. I imagine Israel can keep going for much longer, because Hamas has milked social media sympathy for all its worth. The only pressure that matters comes from the State department or Israel's population. A change of heart of either group will come from a frustration with the ineffectiveness of how the war is run, rather than any moral calculus.
I am responding to the OP’s future scenario
You linked me to a long write-up by an activist. Why should I take it seriously? Do you have a specific reason to think Gaza isn’t facing starvation? Why not specify the compelling evidence instead of saying “here, read this long tweet by LiterallyWho”
Why should I not trust the UN? https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165457
Why should I not trust the World Food Programme? https://x.com/WFP/status/1947036919289741771
Why should I not trust the World Hunger Organization? https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/gaza-facing-man-made-mass-starvation-says-whos-tedros-2025-07-23/
Why should I not trust the NYT? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/24/world/middleeast/gaza-starvation.html
Why should I not trust Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, and Oxfam? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9xkx7vnmxo.amp
Are American Baptists lying to me? https://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/more-than-100-organizations-are-sounding-the-alarm-to-allow-lifesaving-aid-into-gaza/
^ Is the Catholic charity group Caritas from Germany lying to me?
^ Is the Episcopal Peace Fellowship lying to me?
Is Japan International Volunteer Center lying to me?
^ Is the Mennonite Central Committee lying to me?
Because they’re all dirty liars that have constantly lied about every single thing over at least the last 12 years I’ve been paying attention?
I clicked on link 3 at random, read the article, and am unsure how or what you’re supposed to be trusting.
I’m being honest here - what is it even saying?
‘ Israel shouldn't be be in charge of food distribution to Gaza - people in Gaza are hungry - Palestinians have been killed trying to get food ‘
It’s a fucking war.
What is it that you’re supposed to come away with? Why did you link it? What is it supposed to mean to me?
It seems to be every international org, and every unbiased org, any unaffiliated with Israel, that have been testifying the same thing. Why would Swedes or Japanese or American Baptists all be lying? The UN, in the link at #3, is saying that their own staff face hunger and “hospitals have admitted people in a state of severe exhaustion caused by a lack of food.”
Hardly. It’s disproportionate, there’s no viable objective, Israel’s intention is to ethnically cleanse the land, and there’s no legitimate reason to be punishing the civilian populations by withholding aid or firing on civilians attempting to obtain aid.
Israel has always been disliked by basically everyone because "Jews" aside from American conservatives who either A) Recognized Islam as a greater threat; or B) Were religious fellas hoping for a restoration of the holy land, eventually. Or maybe the rapture.
There are very few actual option in this situation. Gazans, by a vast majority, want a genocide of Israel. Israeli's are a split bunch, some want genocide of Gaza, some want peace, and some want to genocide themselves. The people who want peace cant get it. So long as no magical entity comes and brainwashes the Gazans into thinking Jews are cool and good neighbors (see, for example, the fictional jutsu kotoamtsukami it will continue to be. We then are left with two permanent solutions, being genocide of either side. Lay down your chips, which would you prefer?
I disagree with "always".
Israel was popular with the pro-establishment left well into the 1980s, even in countries where the pro-establishment left wasn't dominated by Jews. The Yes, Minister sketch about Israel-Palestine has Hacker and the politicians being pro-Israel because it is the moderate, popular position and Sir Humphrey and the Deep State being pro-Palestine because they want to make nice to the Gulf Arabs. (This was back when the Gulf Arab monarchies were as anti-Israel as the rest of the Arab world). Pro-establishment right attitudes to Israel used to depend on how much the pro-establishment right favoured making nice to the Gulf Arabs for cynical oil-politics reasons vs standing up for Western values.
Why? A combination of Cold War politics (Israel's worst enemies where Soviet clients), Holocaust guilt, straightforward preference for civilisation over barbarism, and a belief among non-Communist socialists that Israel back when Labour was the natural party of government was a socialist success story.
What changed? The Cold War ended, post-colonial guilt replaced Holocaust guilt, the era where Israel was a plucky underdog receded into history, changes in Israeli domestic politics made it less sympathetic to Western leftists (and, increasingly, with the rise of religious Zionism and the increasing influence of true-believing Orthodox Judaism, fans of Western civilisation more generally), the humanitarian situation for Palestinians in the West Bank (for which Israel is to blame) and Gaza (for which Israel is widely but unfairly blamed) got worse after the failure of Oslo compared to pre-Oslo.
More options
Context Copy link
Ot C) see Christianity as having developed from Judaism and consider themselves culturally tied to Jews. Also, they are more likely to be politically conservative which means they support American allies.
Supporting Israel because it brings about the Rapture is basically a weakman.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s defensive.
It’s to no longer be attacked, to get back hostage bodies, and to be safe in the future.
It isn’t - if those Palestinians were instead Germans or Chinese, this wouldn’t be happening. It is happening because instead they have a death cult attacking them for decades at their doorstep.
The aid is constantly going to Hamas. Outside of very specific incidences, Israel is not firing on civilians. And certainly not on purpose or wholesale.
The Gazan population has grown.
Nothing you’re saying is accurate or true.
This is a warzone and you’re sending out anti Israeli propaganda. That the place even has hospitals is amazing.
Yea they're really giving the impression of being on the defensive. This is preventative, and coupled with a highly ideological notion of getting that land back and removing these people once and for all.
"Defensive" in that it's a direct response to offensive action, not that they're currently holding ground and trying not to get pushed back by a sustained opposing offensive.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link