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 -
If Israel had to buy its munitions (either in the short term or long term) it would impose more pressure to finish the war quickly, or in general do more diplomacy and less bombing. Easy to spend other people's money or take risks if your friends will bail you out, people are usually more frugal with their own money.
The US also helps Israel with key enablers that aren't really for sale - satellite surveillance, in-air refuelling, electronic signals gathering and B-2 bomber strikes. It would be impractical for Israel to try and replace what the US does for them, they can't afford a blue-water navy to put ships in the Persian gulf and shoot at Iranian missiles from there, nor can Israel really put much pressure on Yemen. Once you have a navy, using it is easy enough but if you don't then getting one is hard.
Israel could establish a stockpile of munitions purchased from overseas but it wouldn't be very economical or reliable compared to domestic production or getting resupplied straight from the US.
The quickest way to win a war against an intransigent opponent when you have total military supremacy isn't less bombing and more diplomacy, rather the opposite. Same goes for people's plans to defund the iron dome. The cheapest way to do things is the bloodiest.
If the price of bombing is higher, then the amount of bombing will fall as bombing is replaced with substitutes?
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Israeli military supremacy is a mirage. They can't stop Iranian missile barrages without a gigantic US defence effort and even then a fair few get through. They can't even persist with their bombing of Gaza without US munitions, the munitions just aren't there.
The 'lets just exterminate them all' policy you seem to be proposing would probably shorten the lifespan of the state of Israel rather than lengthening it. Very courageous for a small country dependent upon global supply chains for its high-tech economy to beg for sanctions while performing a follow-up to the Warsaw ghetto liquidation (such an operation will be costly!) At the end of the day, Arab oil > whatever Israel brings to the table.
Can you explain realistically what diplomatic solution exists for Isreal.
I can see why Israel wants to be bigger rather than smaller. But I don't see why making Israel bigger is deserving of overseas subsidy. It just invites them to be more reckless.
You didn't answer the question. What land concession, short of the river to the sea, could Israel make for an enduring peace?
I am not a Palestinian negotiator and do not have a peace solution worked out.
I am however confident that RPing as the Waffen SS is not the way to go.
It is really really important that you have no actual suggestion for a lasting peace. That's the entire problem and if you don't want to engage with it then I have no idea what would compel you to weigh into the discussion.
Well your solution would produce a lasting peace. Eventually. Israel goes into Gaza and does some ethnic cleansing. Sanctions are imposed. Rockets come down on Israel, this time without the US blowing a huge chunk of its missile defence interceptors to defend the country. Year by year, productive industry departs. F-35s sit idle in airfields, lacking parts. The best and brightest leave for safer, richer America rather than being sent off in increasingly low-tech raids on Gaza, Syria, the West Bank or Lebanon which may win a few tactical successes to no strategic advantage. The most fanatical Israelis become increasingly prominent as the others leave and make wilder and wilder threats. Eventually a rump state is left behind, or the whole thing is annexed by Palestine, or there's some nuclear fracas... There would be a lasting peace eventually.
Yet somehow I suspect this isn't the lasting peace you're looking for.
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
Sure. The pressure you talked about initially sounded more like a hard deadline approaching, but of course money isnt free.
Point taken about the "key enablers", though I couldnt say how important they are. Yemen for example seems to have been more of a problem for the rest of the world, without US involvement it either wouldnt be a problem, or else the US would deal with it for its own reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link