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 -
Anti-'Israel-expanding-beyond-the-Green-Line' or anti-'Israel-existing-at-all'?
If those favouring a two-state solution were to tell those advocating an Arab-Palestine-from-the-river-to-the-sea, like the gay rights movement told the pedophiles, "You can't sit with us!", I would regard them with more sympathy.
I am referring to both the Golan Heights and the continued expansion of the Yellow line. As for me personally I favour a single-state solution with full democracy, along with some denazification efforts/war-crime prosecutions.
But either way, there's zero credibility in condemnations of wars of aggression for lebensraum that mysteriously pass over Israel, because that makes it clear that it isn't wars of aggression that you're objecting to but some secret other motive. "Wars of aggression are fine for me but not for thee" is not a particularly compelling message that will convince anyone to support your cause.
Both of which are outside of pre-1967 Israeli territory; the Green Line being the border of such with the West Bank and Gaza. Admittedly this doesn't address the Golan Heights; I apologise if I was less than clear.
As such a state would likely soon have an Arab population greater than its Jewish population, and as many of the Palestinian Arabs object to Jews existing as equals, I would judge a 'one-state solution' as being approximately as prudent as siting Doreen's Nursery next to Ed's Dingo Farm.
Of Hamas, right? (Padme, her face concerned!)
Do you know of any organisations condemning Israeli actions in Gaza/the West Bank/the Golan Heights who also explicitly reject Palestinian claims on pre-1967 Israeli territory? Such an organisation would have more credibility than one that equivocates whether, when they refer to 'occupied Palestine', they mean to include Tel Aviv, and has discovered no degree of anti-Semitism sufficient to draw a reaction of "You can't sit with us!".
It's not secret; I believe everyone is entitled to my opinion. I would prefer that no clay be taken by force of arms; however, if that option is unavailable, and one side or the other must gain from the conflict, I would prefer that the side gaining territory be the side that was minding its own damn business.
If Alicestan is invaded by Bobesia,
Borders return to status quo ante > Alicestan takes land from Bobesia >>> Bobesia takes land from Alicestan.
Yes, and Israel acquired that territory via force of arms. If Israel can do it, why not Russia? If Israel can do it, why can't China do the same to Taiwan?
Of course! But you'd also have to launch mass prosecutions for anyone in the Israeli government who supported the illegal settlements or the military action in Gaza. You'd also have to take every single Israeli who supported the ethnic cleansing of Gaza or otherwise held racist views towards the Palestinians and put them through some re-education, but if there's real accountability and progress I'm confident you could have peace between the two populations.
I don't care about pre-1967 Israeli territory - why do you think that the perpetrators of the Deir Yassin massacre should be rewarded? I was under the impression that you're opposed to taking territory through violence!
But we have a chance to simply undo the entire problem! A single state solution definitively repudiates the idea that claiming territory via force of arms is acceptable. Anything else sends the message that it is perfectly fine, and leaves you unable to condemn anything Russia, China or even North Korea decides it wants to do.
Because after the World Wars, we realised that industrial warfare was increasingly destructive and needed to be stopped. Undoing all previous land seizures would involve untangling a colossal rats'-nest of claims and counter-claims, many of which left few if any records; thus we drew a line in the sand at 1945: going forward, no nation would be allowed to take land from another by force of arms.
This left the question of European colonies, one of which was the British territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The United Nations passed a resolution dividing the territory into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an internationalised Jerusalem. The Jews were willing to accept this proposal; the Arabs rejected it, started a war intended to drive the Jews into the sea, and failed. (Had the Arabs accepted the proposal, there would be a Palestinian state consisting of the Gaza Strip extended northward along the coast to Ashdod and southward along the Egyptian border halfway to the Gulf of Aqaba, an expanded West Bank surrounding Jerusalem and connecting to Gaza at a quadripoint, an area on the northern coast and Lebanese border extending to Acre and Nazareth and connecting to the West Bank at a quadripoint, and an exclave at Jaffa. They would also have a slight majority of the land area north of the 31st parallel, south of which is the Negev desert.)
So your proposal would involve both sides receiving remedial 'things they should have learned in kindergarten' lessons? You are at least more reasonable than the Ideology Which Refuses To Be Named....
Because they didn't start the war.
If someone gains territory in a war that they started, that incentivises further aggression. If someone loses territory in a war that they started, however....
Unfortunately, it also leaves the Jewish people, with their long history of persecutions and expulsions, a minority in every state in the world, and thus making their survival (at least in the age of modern passport and immigration controls) dependent on whether the Nations are feeling generous that day; the example of the MS St Louis makes that a non-starter.
If other countries were to open their borders, a one-state solution might become feasible.
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