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 -
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.
Alright, your solution is jews driven into the sea, got it. Glad we got to the bottom of it.
No, that's your solution. Acquire some reading comprehension!
So the options you see for the Israelis are that they can do "diplomacy" which you cannot define, or some fantasy of the, nuclear armed, state collapsing into barbarism. I just don't think you've thought at all about this subject.
You need to develop reading comprehension. I cannot stress this enough. There are many things the Israelis can do. I maintain that more diplomacy and less bombing would advance their position in terms of peace and stability. Obviously it wouldn't advance the goal of territorial expansion since diplomacy requires negotiation, give and take. But Israel is a small country, territorial expansion is not sustainable with their resources. Israel only pursuing the 'bomb first, annex later' strategy because the US provides cover from the negative consequences of their strategy, US power is upholding an unnatural, unstable equilibrium.
Your 'solution' is the fastest and surest route to disaster for Israel by torpedoing the source of Israeli strength, American support. Their prior strategy of 'pretending to negotiate, sabotaging negotiations, dividing opponents and then blaming others when the Palestinians don't accept bad terms' worked pretty well, far better than your 'blow everything up and get sanctioned into the ground' approach might.
Do you imagine there is some kind of "diplomacy" slider in the Knesset that the Israelis just refuse to toggle? Who are they doing diplomacy with? Iran? Hamas? If you think this is their best plan surely you have developed it past one word.
Israel won wars before America became involved in the region buying arms from places like Czechslovakia although they have a sophisticated home grown arms industry now. Maybe they could keep the Iron dome going without US support, maybe they couldn't and then they'd suffer more casualties. Despite what you seem to think those casualties would incentivize them to be more aggressive not less due to the asymmetries involved.
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