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 -
Isn't this the norm during WW2? What is the expected norm during the 1940s on military tactics related to civilian targets?
It may go against the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) in the following ways:
rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious conviction and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated. Pillage is formally forbidden.
It is especially forbidden to… kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army [interpreted at Nuremberg to apply to civilians]
It is especially forbidden to… kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible
the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.
The Nuremberg Court notes that by 1939 this was “recognized by all civilized nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war”.
Notably, the Nuremberg court never bothered to try Soviet officers for similar Red Army war crimes. Katayn, for example. Has "international law" ever been much more than vae victis?
Under vae victis, America could force Israel to hand back Palestinian land tomorrow. Vae Victis does not legislate that the winning power must act without morality, it merely states that the winner’s dictates are the established reality. America could simply dictate tomorrow that Israel hand the land back to Palestinians, which would satisfy the feelings of the global hegemon while promoting regional stability. That is also Vae Victis. Why shouldn’t the winning nation opt to feel good and promote peace?
Would you mind identifying what land is "Palestinian land"? Does it include Gaza City? Hebron? Ramallah? Tel Aviv?
Also, how did that lend get to be "Palestinian land"? Was it just a matter of ethnically cleansing it and occupying it for a while? Or was more involved?
An international body of third-party experts should decide what constitutes Palestinian land, based on informed estimates of the areas depopulated due to the terror campaign. In the same way that one person didn’t decide the outcome of Germany after WWII, it would be silly to speculate the exact parameters of what is owed to Palestinians. A solid rule: if Israelis used terrorism to cleanse the land, that land should be returned to Palestinians.
At least around the Iron Age, based on DNA. The Christian Palestinians even have a Biblical claim to the land, being descended from the agriculturalists who “converted” to Christianity, and staying put as the Jewish community migrated to Babylon and then dispersed globally to pursue higher wages. There is no reason to think there is significant Arab admixture given how close their DNA is to Samaritans.
Ok, and I guess you agree that any area depopulated of Jews due to a terror campaign is Jewish land?
Just so I understand this, you are claiming that
(1) DNA analysis of Palestinian Arabs connects them to what is now Israel going back thousands of years; and
(2) DNA analysis of other groups, including Jews, does not do so?
Sure, and that happened with WWII reparations, with Germany paying some high number of billions. What’s wrong with that? If there is some ancestral quarter for Jews in Baghdad and the government made them flee through terrorism, they should have that back or be offered compensation.
I provided some links in this comment. The Palestinians (particularly the Christians) show direct continuity with DNA of Ancient Israel. Samaritans show the closest link of course, which makes sense, and then there’s the Iraqi Jews showing a close link. Ashkenazim are somewhat far away in terms of genetics.
Perhaps nothing, perhaps a lot.
And the same applies to Gaza City, Hebron, and the eastern part of Jerusalem? That's all Jewish Land in your view, or at least the neighborhoods where Jews lived prior to being ethnically cleansed?
I am a little confused. Are you saying that Palestinian Arabs (and only Palestinian Arabs) have direct continuity with DNA of Ancient Israel?
Okay, so it sounds like by your definition, Israel sits on "Jewish Land." Right?
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