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 -
Syria is an obvious counterexample: they pretty much unconditionally surrendered to Israel and were rewarded by getting bombed into oblivion, having their territory seized, and just generally getting humiliated.
This is obviously not true. We've had a two year test case in which Israel tried and failed to roll in and crush Hamas, the smallest and weakest of its opponents.
When exactly was this unconditional surrender?
And what do you suppose is the reason for the failure you are alleging?
They gave up as much territory as the IDF was willing to seize without even trying to fight for it and then stationed troops to prevent any other Syrians from trying to fight the invaders. I'd call that "unconditional surrender".
Because their ground forces are totally inept, because they have zero tolerance for casualties and because they have no coherent strategy for actually winning wars.
So you decline to tell me WHEN this unconditional surrender took place? I'm asking so I can look it up and see if there is any merit to what you are saying. It's a very simple question. You claim that Syria "pretty much unconditionally surrendered to Israel" -- I am asking WHEN this unconditional surrender took place. What month and year?
I disagree, but let's assume this is true for the sake of argument. In that case, I will modify my point as follows:
Israel clearly has the power to roll in and cause mucho damage in Jordan; same thing with Egypt; same thing with Gaza; and same thing with Area A. But as the saying goes, one of these things is not like the others.
December 8th, 2024.
Like any conqueror, rather than causing mucho damage they would greatly prefer to absorb their territory with minimal resistance, like Area C. The current generation of Israeli leadership is also considerably less patient than that which made peace with the Jordanians and Egyptians (who, might I add, receive billions of American taxpayer dollars every year to stay at peace) and has demonstrated far less goodwill towards those who chose collaboration or submission.
This is very recent and I don't remember hearing anything about this in the news. To be clear, in your view (1) after December 8, 2024, Syria took essentially no aggressive actions towards Israel; (2) Syria fully cooperated with any demands made by Israel and did not resist Israel in any way; and (3) nonetheless, Israel bombed Syria into oblivion.
Is that your position?
Edit: Looking back on your post, it seems you have defined "unconditional surrender" a bit differently than how I would understand it. It seems that in your view "unconditional surrender" doesn't foreclose the possibility of (1) continued attacks by the party who has unconditionally surrendered; (2) preparation for future military strikes by the party who has unconditionally surrendered; or (3) refusal to cooperate by the party who has unconditionally surrendered.
Is that correct?
I'm a little confused by your response. Do you dispute that Israel has NOT attempted to absorb or annex any parts of Jordan, Egypt, or Area A?
Essentially, yes.
No, I would define "unconditional surrender" as a state in which the party surrendering allows the other party totally unconditional access and control of their country without any attempt at resistance or in this case, actively preventing anyone else in the country from attempting to resist.
Israel did attempt to absorb the Sinai, they constructed several resorts during their occupation there and it was the preeminent position among the Israeli public including high level elites like Moshe Dayan. The only reason they didn't is because Egypt launched an attack that nearly wiped them out and forced them to resort to nuclear blackmail for American support. It was only after Egypt demonstrated the ability to put Israel's whole existence on the line that Israel was willing to make land concessions.
That's the consistent pattern with Israel, by the way: if you surrender without a fight they push as far as they can, like the West Bank, whereas if you give them a bloody nose they'll consider negotiations, as with Egypt. If Egypt had followed your advice after 1967 they never would have recovered the Sinai at all.
Ok, I think I understand your position now. And I am extremely skeptical. Please show me your evidence that (1) on or about December 8, 2024, Syria "pretty much unconditionally surrendered" to Israel; and (2) shortly thereafter "Israel bombed Syria into oblivion"
I disagree, but in any event, it sounds like you are conceding that Israel has not attempted to annex or absorb Jordan or area A, correct?
I am extremely skeptical of this claim as well. Please show me your evidence. TIA.
Okay, plus this
Here you go
Hitler didn't attempt to annex Vichy either but that might have changed had he won the war. Israel has, for it's entire existence (with the partial exception of the Rabin-Sharon era), been in an unending state of attempting to absorb territory from one or more of it's neighbors.
But the fact that they're currently "only" annexing Area C kind of proves my point: The PLO tried making peace with Israel and they were rewarded with annexation, whereas Hezbollah hit them in the nose and were given withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The weakest, most conciliatory neighbors are the ones Israel robs land from first.
Perhaps you should engage in some preliminary research yourself on these topics before expressing arbitrary skepticism, since the only real dispute here is not whether the Israelis activated their nuclear forces but whether said activation was decisive in provoking American intervention on their side
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