site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   8964 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 28, 2025

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump, breaking with Netanyahu, acknowledges ‘real starvation’ in Gaza. Reddit discussion.

This makes him the first right winger I've seen say anything about starvation after something happened recently that made lots of places start talking about it, maybe the move to GHF food distribution? I can't really trust the UN when they talk about it, since they may have been still pissed that Israel cut UNRWA out, plus I heard it was only two dedicated Gaza writers putting out statements of that kind. I can't really trust leftists when they post about it, because they fail to show me their homework and seem to argue a very motivated stance. But Trump talking about it... I don't know about that either. He has spoken off the cuff before. But it brings me to ask: how bad is it? What footage did he see and is it reflected in the data?

Supposing that there is starvation: is that Israel's intention? What is Israel's strategy going forward? I thought that making camps to move civilians into was a good idea, and then once everyone's out, painstakingly clear the whole place, but I think that the international community wouldn't accept that because it's technically ethnic cleansing. There isn't actually anything the international community would be satisfied by except for total ceasefire and return to October 6th. But I don't actually know what the intention is, is the intention to draw Hamas out of hiding to get to the food somehow? I have a hard time discerning what is true about the war and what isn't.

Eh, they're not "release the hostages" starving yet.

You know, it took a lot to get me to this position, but here I am: yes, Israel wants the Gaza problem solved by having them disappear. Deported out of the country if possible, but dead works too.

Settlers running amok and nobody stopping them, with the Israeli authorities (police on up) just winking at burning land belonging to Palestinians, shooting at them, and moving in and taking over land. Too many "oopsies, we didn't mean to hit that target" events. "Oh yeah sure we'll let in the aid convoy - oh no, we can't, security issues y'see".

Israel wants the entire territory to belong to them, and they don't see the Palestinians as any kind of citizens to remain there. "It's all Hamas propaganda, nobody is starving, if only they turned on Hamas then there would be peace". If they turned on Hamas, then they would just be bulldozed into the ground even quicker.

I'm not supporting Hamas. I think they're terrible. But I also understand why a lot of Palestinians will support them, in the face of "we're shooting people queuing for water, we're blocking aid so babies are starving to death, and if anyone says anything then we cry anti-Semitism and invoke the Holocaust".

I don't believe in Israeli good intentions anymore, if ever I did.

You know, it took a lot to get me to this position, but here I am: yes, Israel wants the Gaza problem solved by having them disappear. Deported out of the country if possible, but dead works too.

Settlers running amok and nobody stopping them

You know there's no settlers in Gaza, right?

He’s talking about the recent incidents that have been occurring in the West Bank.

So basically conflating events happening in 2 completely separate countries at this point.

The more I think about it, the more it is clear to me that there is no great way to handle this crisis. Israel can't just march in and put a flag in the center and say "war's over, pick a leader". The USA tried that in Afghanistan, and it worked for a while, but the old regime was just waiting for their chance. If a regime doesn't care about its populace at all, what can you even do to it to draw it out and kill it? It's like natural selection created the most toxic paradigm possible. I think it will be very hard to starve Hamas to death without starving everyone else to death, too, unless you "ethnically cleanse" the populace by moving them into camps where you can ensure they are all fed safely.

Weirdly modern war might make peace less likely. I’ve been thinking about this theory recently. Many past major compromises, treaties, peace deals etc all benefit from having a well known, somewhat trusted individual who can both negotiate and then sell it to their own people after. Who negotiated peace after the Revolutionary War? Ben Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay. Many such cases, a definite Great Man Theory thing. But Israel and other modern states are in the habit of killing any famous leaders who begin to pop up before they get famous. Thus, no one left to bargain with. Afghanistan, Iraq too.

I think it will be very hard to starve Hamas to death without starving everyone else to death, too, unless you "ethnically cleanse" the populace by moving them into camps where you can ensure they are all fed safely.

You can't do that either; Hamas will be in the camps.

If they're in camps, then the guards control what comes in and what goes out. Basically harmless except for his ideology, and I now see the problem you've pointed out. It's even worse than I imagined writing that comment. It seems there really are no ways for Israel to solve the problem that would be acceptable to anyone involved or anyone watching from afar.

Try not rounding up the civilian population into camps, or shooting people rushing forward for food aid because they're starving. It's amazing how not being stormtroopers helps shift the views of the people on the other side.

Yes, I said stormtroopers. I don't think the IDF is behaving in an honest fashion. I'm hearing news reports on our national broadcaster every morning about what's going on in Gaza. Unless you want to convince me every single one of the people, the doctors, the volunteers, the journalists, the UN observers, interviewed on those reports is secretly a Hamas mole, horrible things are going on and Israel is doing them.

I don't have a problem with people being against camps or shooting people. But I do have a problem with that when no alternative is brought up. The "ceasefire now" folks totally miss that all of this cycle will just repeat when the next terrorist attack happens, and the previous equilibrium with the checkpoints, the rocket attacks, and the kids throwing rocks at the checkpoints was not a stable one. What is your take on what should happen with Israel and Gaza?

The "ceasefire now" folks totally miss that all of this cycle will just repeat when the next terrorist attack happens

The mistake is thinking this is a bug, rather than a feature of this way of thinking for these people. I don't think I'm being overly cynical when I say that most self-described Palestinian supporter don't want peace, they want a war where Hamas is winning. "Ceasefire now" is only a slogan that gets brought up when Israel has the military advantage.

Try not rounding up the civilian population into camps, or shooting people rushing forward for food aid because they're starving. It's amazing how not being stormtroopers helps shift the views of the people on the other side.

They tried that. It resulted in a constant series of rocket attacks topped by the 10/7 invasion.

Hamas probably does not have track of all the hostages.

Are the Israeli lives more important than the lives of the Gazan children or not?

Because at this point the Israelis are holding the children hostage too.

If you are the Israeli government, then yes, the lives of your citizens are more important than the lives of an adversary. That's what it means to be a nation-state.

Same for the US. I would expect the American government to prioritize the lives of Americans held abroad above the lives of citizens of enemy - or even of third party neutral - countries.

That's what it means to be a nation-state.

A Palestinian doctor has warned: "We are out of options, and we are running out of time."

Dr Salha, working at the al Awda Hospital in northern Gaza, warned of the dire circumstances they said the hospital was operating under.

Salha said: "We used to care for 200 women and children a day, now it's over 2,000.

"We simply can't cope. Malnutrition is devastating mothers and newborns.

"We're seeing a sharp rise in caesarean sections, miscarriages, and babies born underweight."

Salha warned they were running out of vital supplies for newborns, and that their own staff were surviving on just one meal a day.

"Three colleagues collapsed in our emergency department last week due to hunger, while working around the clock to care for patients. This is a humanitarian catastrophe," Salha said.

Sorry, newborn baby, you are an immediate threat to this poor defenceless country and have to be crushed before you can attack it. But it's okay, that doctor is really a secret Hamas plant and he's lying about it all.

So is this British doctor. Everybody is lying, it's all Hamas propaganda, and Israel is totally blameless and only wants the chance to create a nation where Arabs, Christians, Jews, secular or whomever you are, wherever you are from, are all equal citizens and cherished by the nation as its people.

Wow, it really sounds like that doctor should call for Hamas to surrender. Unconditionally, even. Has he?

Or is he a regular member of his death cult, like the old women in Palestine who weep with joy that their children were killed trying to murder Jews?

I feel like, especially in this community of mostly atheistic high decouplers, that everyone posting on this topic should have to specify if they grasp the concept of what true belief in a warrior's afterlife would entail.

You know, right now I'm listening to the news on the radio and it's another interview with someone about what is happening in Gaza.

I have two options:

(1) Everyone in the world is a lying liar who loves Hamas and wants to obliterate Israel. There is no starvation, no Israeli blockades, and the hard-core Zionists who want an ethnically Jewish state for an ethnically Jewish people are just lined up waiting with bouquets and gift baskets to hand over to the Palestinians once they take control of Gaza.

(2) Maybe, just possibly maybe, the IDF are fudging the truth about what they are doing and the Israeli government is being hands-off in hopes that the problem will solve itself - no need for a Palestinian state when there are no more Palestinians (be that 'encouraged forcefully to emigrate to other countries or dead of famine and disease').

I think Hamas are terrible and should disappear if at all possible. But when people are dying, I don't give a flying fuck about their politics. Even the most obnoxious hair-dyed queer tranny activist, if they were literally starving to death, I'd say "help them" and not "hur-dur, they should have picked the right side in the political fight". Stop people dying of starvation first, worry about rooting out the terrorists second.

What I'm reading on here is awfully like all the commentary about problems in red states, with gleeful gloating about "natural disaster/economic crash serves them right for voting for Trump".

You know, right now I'm listening to the news on the radio and it's another interview with someone about what is happening in Gaza.

I have two options:

(1) Everyone in the world is a lying liar who loves Hamas and wants to obliterate Israel.

No, everyone who is in your curated source of news is a lying liar who loves Hamas and wants to obliterate Israel. Or is dumb as dirt and don't realize they're patsies for same.

But when people are dying, I don't give a flying fuck about their politics.

That's not how war works, or ever has.

No, everyone who is in your curated source of news is a lying liar who loves Hamas and wants to obliterate Israel. Or is dumb as dirt and don't realize they're patsies for same.

Reporters. Doctors. Independent charities. People on the ground. All lying shills for Hamas, while the saintly IDF forces are just misunderstood bunnies.

My news isn't curated, unless by that you mean "someone turns on the radio set to the national broadcaster station at work".

I'll say this for present day Israel, they've really successfully ridden the "any breath of criticism is anti-Semitism, are you a Nazi who wants to Holocaust us all over again?" wagon to get people blindly on their side.

More comments

That's a lot of words to not specify if you've ever spent even 30 seconds considering the rammifications of a sincere belief in a warrior afterlife paradise.

On a very related note, the NYT just walked back their expose on the dramatic starving kid. Apparently they never bothered to check any of the details, just believed what his mother said at face value. In the new reporting he "suffers from a “muscle disorder” for which he receives specialized nutrition and physical therapy." and has “cerebral palsy, hypoxemia, and was born with a serious genetic disorder”.

I think Hamas are terrible and should disappear if at all possible.

And yet you believe everything they say, even though they blatantly lie all the time and have for decades. Good grief man, look at the extreme disparity between those two strawmen you constructed up there.

What I'm reading on here is awfully like all the commentary about problems in red states, with gleeful gloating about "natural disaster/economic crash serves them right for voting for Trump".

No, it's not. Military action you deliberately provoked by acting like Dark Eldar is not "bad luck" now matter how much mindkilled Manichaens want to think it is.

No, I don't believe what Hamas says, because it's not Hamas saying it. We very much have Israeli government sources saying stuff. We also, since I don't live in America, have voices from other parts of the world saying things.

Sorry, newborn baby, you are an immediate threat to this poor defenceless country and have to be crushed before you can attack it

Correct, this is what a democratic theory of sovereignty means and has always meant since the French revolution at least. If the people are responsible for empowering their government, then if a country aggresses, the people are responsible for that too.

If you don't want your people to suffer the consequences of war, don't start one. It's really not complicated.

May you all live under the same conditions as the benign and beneficent rule of the IDF. After all, you're not trouble-makers so you'll be fine, won't you?

I suddenly feel a need for the cursing psalms.

Psalm 10

10 Why, O Lord, do you stand far away?
Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?

2 In arrogance the wicked hotly pursue the poor;
let them be caught in the schemes that they have devised.
3 For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul,
and the one greedy for gain curses[a] and renounces the Lord.
4 In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him;
all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
5 His ways prosper at all times;
your judgments are on high, out of his sight;
as for all his foes, he puffs at them.
6 He says in his heart, “I shall not be moved;
throughout all generations I shall not meet adversity.”
7 His mouth is filled with cursing and deceit and oppression;
under his tongue are mischief and iniquity.
8 He sits in ambush in the villages;
in hiding places he murders the innocent.
His eyes stealthily watch for the helpless;
9 he lurks in ambush like a lion in his thicket;
he lurks that he may seize the poor;
he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net.
10 The helpless are crushed, sink down,
and fall by his might.
11 He says in his heart, “God has forgotten,
he has hidden his face, he will never see it.”

12 Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up your hand;
forget not the afflicted.
13 Why does the wicked renounce God
and say in his heart, “You will not call to account”?
14 But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation,
that you may take it into your hands;
to you the helpless commits himself;
you have been the helper of the fatherless.
15 Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer;
call his wickedness to account till you find none.

16 The Lord is king forever and ever;
the nations perish from his land.
17 O Lord, you hear the desire of the afflicted;
you will strengthen their heart; you will incline your ear
18 to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed,
so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.

There are no American hostages being held by Hamas:

https://www.ajc.org/news/meet-the-two-american-hostages-still-held-by-hamas

There appears to be two American citizens who were fighting in the Israeli military who were killed on October 7th.

That isn’t the claim they’re making.

The United States supports Israel militarily. There are no US hostages being held. It is not in the interest of the United States to support the starvation of gazan children regardless of how many Israeli hostages Hamas allegedly has.

The comment was making an analogy that if what happened to Israel on October 7 had happened to America (eg across the Mexican border), the US would react a certain way. I’m not sure how this relates to American hostages in Gaza.

The war situation has developed not necessarily to Gaza's favor.

About as insightful a comment as "Eh, they are not 'free Palestine' raped yet" would have been about Oct 7th.

There are several parallel subthreads already discussing to what extent the starvation actually affects Hamas, and you choose to ignore them and instead post this Twitter-level dunk.

About as insightful a comment as "Eh, they are not 'free Palestine' raped yet" would have been about Oct 7th.

Except that's a meaningful statement - "the acts of war undertaken so far have been insufficient to compel a favorable political resolution" - just glibly phrased.

Neither will Israel starve Gaza into releasing the hostages nor will Hamas rape Israel into recognizing a free Palestine. Nor were either Nazi Germany or the UK ever going to bomb each other into submission.

Both phrasings imply that there is some level of suffering at which point the other side will give in, that the cruelty is instrumental to achieve another terminal goal. While this might even be technically true (i.e. once the last Gazan starves, nobody will stop the IDF from retrieving the bones of the hostages) I think that the implication "and we already have made progress into making the other side give in" is simply false.

In reality there is no clever terminal goal for which starving Gazans or murdering Jewish civilians is an instrumental stepping stone, so we can conclude that the cruelty is itself a terminal goal.

Neither will Israel starve Gaza into releasing the hostages nor will Hamas rape Israel into recognizing a free Palestine. Nor were either Nazi Germany or the UK ever going to bomb each other into submission.

And yet Germany was starved into submission in WWI, Japan bombed into submission in WWII, Tigray starved/bombed into submission in Ethiopia, etc.

Both phrasings imply that there is some level of suffering at which point the other side will give in, that the cruelty is instrumental to achieve another terminal goal.

Yes, it is a truism that war is politics by other means.

While this might even be technically true (i.e. once the last Gazan starves, nobody will stop the IDF from retrieving the bones of the hostages) I think that the implication "and we already have made progress into making the other side give in" is simply false.

Your strawmanning aside, that's a nice hunch you have there - a shame if someone were to...test it.

In reality there is no clever terminal goal for which starving Gazans or murdering Jewish civilians is an instrumental stepping stone, so we can conclude that the cruelty is itself a terminal goal.

Blind assertion without evidence. It's quite clear that murdering Jewish civilians is envisaged as an instrumental stepping stone to "liberating" Israeli territory for Palestinians - Hamas and other Palestinian organizations openly say so. And it's not as if there is any shortage of Israeli press squabbling about the blockade, food aid issues, and what the ultimate political program that Israel should be pursuing w/r/t Gaza is (downstream of "10/7 can never happen again" of course), none of which you discuss or cite.

I think Hamas is suitably different enough that you can't really compare starving their people to the blockades of Germany or Japan. Hamas and other terrorist groups consider human suffering and death to be a good thing because of their religion. There may be no upper limit to how much death they will tolerate.

In light of this, I don't really know how you solve the Hamas problem. Maybe stop letting aid in and then also give everyone guns to turn the whole thing into a Syria-esque clusterfuck and hope the people solve the Hamas problem themselves? Is that why clusterfucks like Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Yemen happen?

"Eh, they are not 'free Palestine' raped yet"

If Hamas had the military power to actually accomplish this, that would make their actions less pointlessly evil. The fact that Hamas' power is limited to terrorizing a few unarmed civilians and then scampering away in impotent terror when the real soldiers show up is, itself, the problem. The fact that they're too weak to have any chance of victory is the reason why their futile war crimes are so heinous. It's one thing to commit a necessary evil in order to liberate your people from oppression. It's another, much worse thing to commit a pointless evil just for the sake of doing it.

As Talleyrand once said of another act of self-destructive violence against civilians: "It was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

The fact that they're too weak to have any chance of victory

I'm sure the USA thought the Vietcong were too weak to have a chance of victory. Or the British/Russians/USA vs their flavor of Afghani opposition.

I do actually agree with you in this case, but it's kind of a funny claim to make when we have no idea how this ends.

Anyone making confident calls about any of the insurgencies I listed above partway through ended up very wrong.

I'm sure the USA thought the Vietcong were too weak to have a chance of victory.

And the viet cong didn't win. The north Vietnamese Army did, yes, eventually, against South Vietnam(not the US; the USA had actually withdrawn after assurances that North Vietnam would respect the sovereignty of the south and then chosen not to intervene when they predictably broke that promise), but not the viet cong.

Or the British/Russians/USA vs their flavor of Afghani opposition.

Of course what actually happened was getting tired of propping up the local puppet government and withdrawing to leave it to its fate, which was to get overthrown by militant groups which had consistently lost to the imperial army.

Your enemy giving up and leaving is winning. It's a shitty way to win because you have 0 initative, but you still get what you want in the end.

I'm sure the USA thought the Vietcong were too weak to have a chance of victory.

And the viet cong didn't win. The north Vietnamese Army did, yes, eventually, against South Vietnam(not the US; the USA had actually withdrawn after assurances that North Vietnam would respect the sovereignty of the south and then chosen not to intervene when they predictably broke that promise), but not the viet cong.

The Tet Offensive was crucial in turning American public opinion against the war; that was a joint VC/PAVN operation.

I do actually agree with you in this case, but it's kind of a funny claim to make when we have no idea how this ends.

Of course we have an idea of where this ends. The Palestinian aim to drive the jews, every one, out of the region and the Jews will not leave willingly. It can end with the Palestinians somehow accepting the Jews existing in the region or one side killing the other. Those are the options.

Agreed.

I predict both sides will refuse to understand this and the cycle of violence will perpetuate for our lifetimes

Both sides of the conflict clearly understand this. It's only third parties who do not.

The Viet Cong didn't win, the Americans got tired of fighting and gave up. The Viet Cong never landed a single boot on American soil. There was never any question of the Viet Cong conquering America. In the sense that the Palestinians are too weak to conquer Israel, the Viet Cong were too weak to conquer America.

The difference between Hamas and the Viet Cong is that Hamas has invaded Israeli soil and killed Israeli civilians. The Israelis can't get tired of fighting and give up like the Americans did in Vietnam. If they could, they would have done it already. Hamas and its various sister organizations like Hezbollah will continue to attack Israel until one or the other is annihilated. Ergo, the Israelis have no choice but to continue fighting.

The Viet Cong didn't win, the Americans got tired of fighting and gave up

That is winning. It's a shitty unglamorous way to win, but they accomplished their objectives, and America did not. The Americans could have stuck around and stamped them into oblivion with unlimited political will, but they didn't have it, so they left.

Ergo, the Israelis have no choice but to continue fighting.

I agree but also don't. Money and political will aren't infinite, they'll have to pull back and scale down eventually. The only way this really ends-ends is genocide, and they can't do that, so they'll have to give up eventually.

They can pull back, but they'll be fighting again when Hamas starts another war in a few months or years. There is no losing interest and giving up against an enemy that threatens your homeland.

If the Viet Cong had done 9/11 we would have turned their jungle into a parking lot.

Yes exactly

Hence my opinion that the Israeli strategy is bad because it's inherently unsustainable and also profoundly not going to resolve anything.

he Americans could have stuck around and stamped them into oblivion

My understanding is that the Viet Cong was stamped into oblivion in the aftermath of Tet, and American was defeated by the North Vietnamese, who didn't actually need the Viet Cong given the complete failure to build a South Vietnam that the South Vietnamese were willing to fight for.

Sure

My knowledge of the Vietnam war is shaky at best. My point is that insurgencies can win just by surviving and running out the clock

If Hamas had the military power to actually accomplish this, that would make their actions less pointlessly evil.

As I understand it, the original conception for Oct. 7 was a surprise Hamas break-out, coupled with a simultaneous large-scale Hezbollah offensive, would pincer Israel and overwhelm its local defenses, potentially sufficiently to spark sympathetic uprisings in the West Bank or among Israeli arabs as well.

Notably, the Hezbollah component of the attack didn't happen, and good for the Israelis that it didn't because in terms of raw numbers of fighters and weapons, Hezbollah had a lot more than Hamas (prior to Operation Grim Beeper and collateral airstrikes, at least).

Even without Hezbollah, it was very close to major disaster. The Hamas units were not supposed to be stopping to pillage the kibbutz on the Gaza border, they were supposed to be going from army post to army post and wiping them out all the way to the Palestinian Territories. Which if they had maintained their offensive time tables they very well could have, since the IDF units in the area were terribly unprepared and badly disciplined. Fortunately local police units were much more vigilant and trained for this scenario, and they did a good job slowing down the Hamas special forces units that actually were pushing forward. There was one road intersection that the IDF and police narrowly managed to hold on to, if they hadn’t the only line for reinforcements to get into most Southwestern Israel would have been cut.

Even without Hezbollah, it was very close to major disaster

This is such funny hand wringing. What major disaster? 1000 more Israeli's die (that would suck sure)?

How are a bunch of dudes in pickup trucks and paragliders ever, EVER going to credibly threaten one of the most sophisticated armies on planet earth? Yeah they'd do more damage, it would take longer to root them out sure. But airplanes and tanks > ak's and pickups, it was always going to end like this.

"Omg Hamas almost overran Isreal" is straight melodramatic bullshit. Even if the whole gang pitched in Isreal would have won, it just would have been more like Yum Kippur and less like every other middle eastern insurgency wack-a-mole

How are a bunch of dudes in pickup trucks and paragliders ever, EVER going to credibly threaten one of the most sophisticated armies on planet earth?

You say this like we didn't just have the Afghan war, with the US military fighting dudes in pickup trucks and with AKs and jerry-rigged IEDs.

Also, Israel is tiny It's literally about 9 miles wide from the border to the sea at one point, and it's only 20 miles from Tel Aviv to the border. How many people with AKs running around Boston would it take for the whole city to freak out and panic?

You say this like we didn't just have the Afghan war, with the US military fighting dudes in pickup trucks and with AKs and jerry-rigged IEDs.

And the USA shit stomped them with an insane k/d ratio until they got bored and left. Dude's in cars with AKs are a nightmare but can't do much against a modern army.

How many people with AKs running around Boston would it take for the whole city to freak out and panic?

Not many, but I'm talking existential risk here, not "makes everything fucking awful for a week before dying"

Afghanistan is instructive only in the fact that it shows that weak occupations will not be successful. If you are arguing using Afghanistan as an example, the only logical argument is that Israel should be more brutal, allow in less aid, bomb every building they have credible intelligence houses a Hamas agent, etc, etc. In short, if you are referencing the failure of Afghanistan, the most logical argument vis-a-vis Israel becomes that the US should authorize total war, a blockade of all supplies, and a creeping artillery barrage until nothing is left.

If that is not what you think is a good idea, perhaps use some other example.

If a thousand more Israelis died on 10/7, Gaza would be a smoking, burning crater.

It's not hyperbole to say that Israel has no strategic depth. The distance an American drives to say, Walmart (10 miles) is further than Israel is at its narrowest width. Even a scrappy band of jihadis with no air cover can hold such a small band for a few days. With hostages? Indefinitely.

Israel doesn't get a chance to make a mistake, while its enemies only have to get lucky once to do significant damage.

No disagreement here. They could cause a lot of damage sure. Israel is crazy fragile.

But Israel has a lot of heavy gear. They'd win after a few days if they weren't worried about hostages (which in this scenario, they'd allow them to be collateral damage, I would)

I’m sure this is an opinion that will manage to piss off everyone for different reasons, but I think the IDF is highly overrated, both historically and in its current form. It’s basically what the Russian Army would be like if they had never fought in Ukraine or Afghanistan or Chechnya, and were 1/20th in size.

Their technological achievements are mostly in the field of air defense and certain high-impact intelligence operations, both of which are genuinely impressive but aren’t necessarily going to help in an October 7th kind of situation, especially when the command and communications systems have completely broken down.

I actually don't know a ton any them so I'd love to hear why?

Their air dominance over Iran was pretty gangster though. SEAD is not easy.

More comments

if that had happened, they probably would've triggered 'Grim Beeper' (nice name) early, and it would've turned Hezbollah's army into a mob with guns

still would've been bad for Israel, but I suspect not bad enough that they'd lose.

I doubt it; IIRC the beepers were used to "call up" Hezbollah members for service. If Hezbollah was already engaged in an all-out invasion of northern Israel as envisaged/desired by Hamas, there likely would have been no need to use/carry the beepers after the fighters had assembled and gone into combat.

Notice the discontinuity with your comparison.

Hamas invaded Israel, committed a bunch of war crimes, and now has no method nor seemingly intention of feeding their own people. Which apparently is Israel's fault?

You're comparing Hamas' crimes to their incompetence, and in so doing illustrating my point.

Which apparently is Israel's fault?

When they're the ones blocking all routes and all aid in, yes.

Does Gaza produce anything besides death cultist mouths to feed?

Hamas invaded Israel, committed a bunch of war crimes, and now has no method nor seemingly intention of feeding their own people. Which apparently is Israel's fault?

Israel was blocking the delivery of aid, and after begrudgingly letting some through they were shooting at people going from and to the distribution points. Yes, both of those are their fault.

If you think the two cases are asymmetric, the better difference to observe is perhaps that the Israeli government routinely engages in war crimes against Palestinians, whose relation with Hamas is between hostile and resigned for lack of better options, while Hamas routinely engages in war crimes against Israelis, who have a broadly voluntary and enthusiastic relation with their government. The average Israeli seems to deserve suffering for the Israeli government's crimes a lot more than the average Palestinian deserves suffering for Hamas's.

(And lest we go there, history did not start on Oct 7 2023.)

I don't think you know what a war crime is.

Potshots at civilians picking up groceries is a war crime.

That seems to depend on who is making the judgment, and whether the 'potshot' is an unguided missile launched at civilian population centers (which happen to include grocery stores, and maybe a few valid military targets) or IDF forces firing at what I assume they deem (validly or not) 'suspicious' actors seeking to steal or disrupt humanitarian aid distribution.

Neither really brings joy, though.

Palestinians, whose relation with Hamas is between hostile and resigned for lack of better options... Israelis, who have a broadly voluntary and enthusiastic relation with their government

According to polls of Palestinians conducted between October 31st and November 7th, 2023, support for Hamas stood at 76%; for the Al-Aqsa Briagades at 80%; for Palestinian Islamic Jihad at 84%; and for the Al-Qassam Brigades at 89%. In 2023, Netanyahu's approval rating among Israelis stood at 47%.

Also, a lot of the ones who don't like Hamas dislike Hamas for not killing enough Jews. This is a twenty Stalins sort of dislike. "Doesn't like Hamas" doesn't mean "is more peaceful than Hamas".

Israel had 86.5% favourability for the IDF last year, seemingly up to 93% now but I'm only finding paywalled articles. Unfortunately there are rarely polls that measure trust in the system of government modulo the parts that it allows the public to influence (since favourability for the Netanyahu administration would more accurately correspond to something like favourability of the current Hamas leadership).

Given that IDF service is mandatory for everyone except the haredim, asking an Israeli about their opinion on the IDF is literally "do you like yourself and your neighbors?" - not terribly meaningful, or a useful reflection of Israeli opinion on state policy.

Don't people generally have a "Support the Troops" mentality even if you disagree with what the leadership is doing with the troops?

I imagine that it gets even more so when everyone and their brother spent time in the IDF when they were young.

That's a fair point.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats