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 -
The problem with Israel having nukes is that it incentivizes other states to have nukes. While the Israelis may be solipsistic enough to feel they are the only ensouled and rational creatures dwelling in the Middle East, we can’t actually expect other sovereign states and cultures to feel this way. If what we want is regional stability, then enemies don’t just get a vote, they also get theory of mind and dignity. Would Israel be fine with Oman getting nukes? Egypt? Is the region safer with Saudi Arabia under the nuclear umbrella of Pakistan? (Do you know that was triggered by Israel breaking all international norms by trying to kill a negotiating team in a sovereign country? How might a rational country change their policies after witnessing that?)
A majority of Palestinians exist in a perpetual post-9/11 state due to the relentless Israeli atrocities that go unpunished. Just this week, the stories are that a family of five was gunned down in the West Bank, while another family was tied up and raped as state-sponsored Jewish-supremacist terrorists beat random women and stole their valuables. This comes as the Defense Minister of Israel has apologized to five IDF rapists, believing that they should not have been charged for raping a detained prisoner, an act that was corroborated by the chief lawyer of the IDF (since resigned), a medical report, and a video. Just this week.
In any case, the surrounding Muslim countries have genuinely sought normalized relations contingent upon a Palestinian state. That was behind the Abraham Accords (no settling in West Bank). Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait are all willing to do this, unless you think they are just making things up. Turkey’s relationship with Israel has soured because of Gaza which shows that they are genuinely interested in Palestinian rights. Wouldn’t Jews behave the same way if the roles were reversed? If there were a group of oppressed Jews somewhere in the world, then Jewish communities worldwide would be pressuring their governments to intervene.
Okay, but it's not clear to me what I am supposed to conclude from all that.
I am trying to speak as descriptively as possible, here. If you think Israel should not exist (is that what you think?) then like--I don't have much to say about that. I'm not interested in (or, probably even very capable of) defending any particular Israeli action on the international stage. The country exists. Like all countries, I'm confident that they get up to some shady stuff. I don't know all the answers to your (rhetorical?) questions, but I don't think that any of them have any substantive bearing on my point.
We do see some of that, though interestingly some American Jews seem to also be of the view that Israeli Jews should, ultimately, be subjected to mass migration or genocide (though they would not phrase it that way, it would be the result of their advocacy succeeding). Politics makes strange bedfellows! But one perhaps important difference between Middle Eastern Muslims and Middle Eastern Jews is that there are many Muslim countries, both in the Middle East and outside of it, and there is only one Jewish country. Strangely, very few Muslim countries are therefore willing to open their borders to Palestinians. Indeed, in many Muslim circles, Palestinians are scarcely better than Jews! Outside of Israel/Palestine, the Middle Eastern Muslim attitude toward Palestinians seems to be that they are useful idiots and foot soldiers, but you wouldn't want your daughter to bring one home for dinner.
If you're right that (A) Israel's nukes are what is substantially destabilizing the region and (B) Israel is safe because it has nukes then you are suggesting, deductively, that the stability of the region depends on Israel no longer being safe. I think that what I am doing here is agreeing with you, while pointing out that "therefore Israel should stop being safe" is neither a humane nor a plausible solution to the problem as you've described it. Indeed, it seems like your real argument boils down to something like "Israel's existence is what destabilizes the Middle East, so probably the rest of the world would be better off if Israel didn't exist."
I have my doubts about this--I think that the Middle East would be filled with different conflicts, absent Israel--but even if I'm wrong about that, I find myself quite unable to endorse "allow the expulsion and/or extermination of Middle Eastern Jews and Christians from Israel/Palestine" as a humane approach to the problem. YMMV! But that seems like one hell of a Danegeld.
The Muslim nations surrounding Israel are not saying “Israel shouldn’t exist”, no one is saying that there, they are saying “return to determined borders and give Palestinians freedom, and in return relations are normalized”. (The object-level discussion is on whether stability is desired.)
Because having a lot of land, or being in a large religious tent, does not give an alien people the right to take land illegally. This does not absolve the crime. Just like I can’t just steal a percent of a Jewish billionaire’s bank account simply because his group owns an enormous amount of resources globally. If I were to do that as a sovereign nation, many Jews would get mad and petition their government to destroy me. There is only one Jewish country because Jews are 0.7% the size of Islam (and only half of them have a desire to live in Israel, so it’s more like 0.4% factoring for Muslim diaspora). In other words, they are owed one tiny country if we intend to allocate countries based on size. They do not deserve more than one country if your framework for deciding these things is population size. If those countries opened their border, Israel would close their border on Palestinians forever, stealing their land, as they have done in the past.
This was, also, the Ashkenazi opinion on mizrachim. Yet they are only nation regardless.
No, you would need to prove that Israel is “no longer safe” if they don’t have nukes, and then you would have to explain why this wouldn’t apply to Saudi Arabians or Syrians or Egyptians. Israel would be plenty safe even without nukes.
Excluding Iran right? because that is essentially what this is all about is it not?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link