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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link