site banner
PaperclipPerfector  14hr ago (text post)   2337 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026

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.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Haaretz recently reported on a trove of new documents pertaining to the 1948 expulsion of Palestinians by Jewish Zionists. They are quite interesting, as they provide evidence toward the disputed claim that the Zionists used a conscious strategy of terror to expel the Muslim and Christian inhabitants.

The most important documents for closer historical examination were those that dealt with the War of Independence. One document that stood out among the papers that had been tossed into the garbage was written by Yitzhak Broshi, commander of Golani's 12th Battalion in the war. It was an order from July 1948 that Broshi sent commanders of the brigade's companies that were engaged in combat in the northern part of the country, titled "Conduct in captured villages where there is a population." The contents of this document are not the type of material one finds in Israeli history books. Broshi informed the officers that after an Arab village was captured, identification certificates were to be issued to the inhabitants. If someone transferred their certificate to another person, both were to be shot. If someone did not report on time for military inspection, they were to be shot and their home was to be blown up. If an "outside Arab" was found in a village, according to Broshi's directives, he was to be shot immediately. In general, the rule was to shoot "every 10th man" in a captured village where outsiders were found. In addition, all the men in any household in which property stolen from Jews was found were to be executed.

Moreover, while there was an order to raze villages, in some cases that was not enough. For example, when it came to Arab a-Zabah, a Bedouin community in the Lower Galilee, not a soul or a trace was to remain. "Every Arab among the Zabahim is to be killed," the order stated. These were not vague directives conveyed by word of mouth. This one and others appeared in "black on white" and were signed by Broshi in his handwriting. In another order dated July 1948, Broshi instructed his troops to mount a search for Arabs who might have hidden in the Mount Turan area of the Lower Galilee, after the site had already been conquered. The order was: "Kill anyone who is hiding."

Among the documents is one stating that "Arabs in a small number are wandering about in the [captured] villages," apparently to collect possessions and food. As per the instructions in the document: "The area is to be cleansed of Arabs." Under the heading "The method," the document adds that "every Arab who will be met with is to be annihilated."

Kotzer's vast collection, some of which was quoted above, is part of a trove of thousands of legal documents from 1948 that were declassified by the military courts due to recent procedures initiated by the Akevot Institute. This rich resource, which was approved for publication by the Military Censor, sheds new light on the history of the Palestinian refugee question. Moreover, it completely dispels the Israeli narrative according to which the country's Arab inhabitants fled of their own volition at the behest of their own leaders. Although some such instructions were indeed disseminated, and some people left at their own initiative – it can now be confirmed, on the basis of an impressive range of evidence, that the IDF expelled Arabs systematically and violently during the War of Independence. The expulsion was effected by massacres, murder and a variety of moves aimed at terrorizing this civilian population and expediting its flight.

There are a number of insightful things here that are a bit too long to quote. It mentions one Shmuel Lehis who massacred 40 Palestinians, becoming the only Israeli convicted of a war crime in this period. He received just one year in jail (in practice: hanging out at a military base) before being pardoned. He went on to work with the World Zionist Organization and became the president of the Jewish Agency in 1978. He later won the Chairman of the Knesset prize, the highest honor bestowed by the Israeli Parliament. Another interesting file involves the commander of the most prominent brigade at the time conveying the dominant expulsion strategy: "How do you expel a village? You lop off the ear of one of the Arabs before everyone else's eyes, and they all flee. In practice, no village was evacuated without stabbing someone in the stomach or by means of similar methods. We won thanks only to the fear of the Arabs, and they were fearful only of deeds that were not in accordance with the law."

I think these documents will be influential in future discourse about the Palestinian Question and the Israel Question. How justified is the Palestinian drive to take back their land from forces of terror (or their inheritors)? How justified is the existence of Israel? Should the world reward a state for taking land through ethnicity-targeted terrorism? Or are these events simply too old to inform present opinion? Comparing these events to Ukraine, we might ask: if Russia were to begin a strategy of terror bombing civilian homes, so as to lead Ukrainians to flee en masse, in how many years should we forget they they’ve done this and welcome them into the World Order?

The Palestinians have been displaced for too long, and have states of their own(they’re really not that different from Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese), this is just balkanian Kosovo je Palestine at this point. The people claiming the land weren’t born there. Their parents weren’t born there. Life sucks for the Palestinians, retaking recent settlements in the West Bank might be reasonable, but Tel Aviv je Palestine is just stupid. The reality is both sides have blood on their hands, the Palestinians seem to now be led by actual psychopaths when they aren’t led by corrupt, incompetent assholes, and the nakhba is more or less outside living memory.

How would you apply the “living memory” rule to other conflicts, actual and hypothetical, so that we know it’s not just an ad hoc rule? Eg, if China took control of Japan for 80 years, should no Japanese ever try to take it back? Should Europe have given up on retaking Spain after 800ad? There are Israelis currently living in homes built by Palestinians; is that not sufficiently “living memory”?

they’re really not that different from Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese

Christian Palestinians appear to be more similar to ancient Israelites than Ashkenazim. While an Englishman might be .018 away from a German using g25 coordinates, a Russian Jew is .09 away from an ancient Israelite while a Christian Palestinian is .032 away. They’re about two Samaritans away from an Ancient Jew, which seems pretty close.

If the native Japanese rose up after 80 years of occupation by the Han, then they would have the right to. If the Japanese diaspora attempted to invade their ancestral homeland which is now majority Chinese eighty years later, that’s just stupid.

Balkans rules of possession make things terrible. The Palestinians lost in Israël long enough ago that they need to accept that- but being very upset about their treatment in the West Bank seems entirely reasonable. Just like how Cherokees advocating for better reservation conditions or whatever is fine, but trying to conquer and ethnically cleanse parts of Georgia is psychotic.

Yet people who haven't lived there for 2000 years are allowed to move to Israel.

Israel is continuing to attack its neighbours, continuing to steal land and continuing to attack christians.

By the Israeli government, legitimately elected by admittedly narrow majorities of the Israeli public. Israel’s West Bank behavior is indeed bad; both sides suck and need to stop Balkans irredentist nationalism, but Israël at least has a functioning society wherever it goes.

When you control land, that's your prerogative to let in whomever you wish.

If Palestine were in control then they could have an immigration policy as open as they wanted.

Yet people who haven't lived there for 2000 years are allowed to move to Israel.

FWIW there were Jews living in (Eastern) Jerusalem, Hebron, and Gaza City for hundreds if not thousands of years before the Arab ethnic cleansing of these areas in the 1930s and 1940s.

There have been christians there for 2000 years so why aren't all christians allowed to move there?

There have been christians there for 2000 years so why aren't all christians allowed to move there?

Why should they be? I mean, your argument is that

(1) Jews haven't lived in Israel in 2000 years; therefore

(2) It's unreasonable that Jews should be permitted to move back.

I am simply pointing out that the premise of your argument is incorrect.

It's also worth pointing out that Israel has not attacked Egypt or Jordan in quite some time. Because what you call "attacking" is actually just defense.

In any event, from whom exactly is Israel "steal[ing]" land, and how did such land come to belong to other groups in the first place? Was it simply a matter of ethnically cleansing the land and living there for a while? Or is it something else?

Is it your view that after the Arabs ethnically cleansed Hebron of Jews in the 1930s and 40s, it became Arab land forever, and if Jews come back they are necessarily "stealing"?

Israel is currently occupying parts of Syria after bombing Syria and backing jihadists for years. They are currently expanding their territory on the west bank. The few thousands of jews who lived there can stay. The Eastern Europeans can go live somewhere else.

Israel is currently occupying parts of Syria after bombing Syria and backing jihadists for years. They are currently expanding their territory on the west bank. The few thousands of jews who lived there can stay. The Eastern Europeans can go live somewhere else.

To whom does the west bank belong and how did it come to be theirs?

Also, would you agree that Palestinian Arabs who are descendants of those who moved to the area from what is now Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria "can go live somewhere else"?

Can we send other ethnic minorities back where they came from as well?

Maybe all the blacks who can prove that they have continuously occupied America since 1776 can stay, but the new ones have to go back to Africa? The whites can all stay, though, no need to expel people who are part of the same ethnic group as the one that is 'supposed' to be there. As long as they're the same color as the people I like it doesn't matter what continent they were born on. The only people who have to prove that they're 'supposed' to be there are the ones from the ethnic group that I, personally, want to kick out of the country for unrelated political reasons.

Can we send other ethnic minorities back where they came from as well?

Maybe all the blacks who can prove that they have continuously occupied America since 1776 can stay, but the new ones have to go back to Africa? The whites can all stay, though, no need to expel people who are part of the same ethnic group as the one that is 'supposed' to be there. As long as they're the same color as the people I like it doesn't matter what continent they were born on. The only people who have to prove that they're 'supposed' to be there are the ones from the ethnic group that I, personally, want to kick out of the country for unrelated political reasons.

I know you are sort of parodying here, but I think it's worth mentioning that in the early days of modern Zionism -- during the Ottoman days -- lots of Arabs moved to Palestine from what are now Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc. They did this in large part because of the enhanced economic activity which had resulted from Jewish immigration.

That's why, for example, "Masri" is a very common name among Palestinian Arabs. It means Egypt.

Logically, if Eastern European Jews who came into the area between 1890 and 1947 need to be kicked out along with their descendants, the same thing should happen to Arabs whose families came from Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, and Lebanon.

More comments

The reality is both sides have blood on their hands, the Palestinians seem to now be led by actual psychopaths when they aren’t led by corrupt, incompetent assholes, and the nakhba is more or less outside living memory.

Phenomenal take

My stance on this since like ~2024 is "at this point both sides deserve each other" but yours is a much better way of putting it

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