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 -
I don’t love the term “terrorism” here since the electronics were clearly aimed at military targets and not civilians. No one calls it terrorism when you bomb an army base but some collateral damage kills civilians too. Terrorism I think by definition is causing civilian harm to change politics.
I agree, but the basic playbook is (1) identify conduct which is perceived as being reprehensible; (2) falsely accuse Israel of doing it. Thus, the false accusations of "genocide," "apartheid," "terrorism," etc.
Israel obviously did genocide when the State was founded. And some elements of apartheid seem obviously true. Those it’s fine to say might makes right. I sort of believe segregation is good.
It's not obvious to me. Would you mind defining "genocide" for purposes of this discussion?
Similar question: What is "apartheid" and what are the elements?
I have found that in these types of discussions, Israel's critics tend to use a lot of loaded words and phrases such as "apartheid," "genocide," "Palestinian land," etc.
However I have found that these people are extremely reluctant to actually define these words and phrases. And the reason seems pretty obvious to me. There's no principled way to define these words and phrases such that (1) they yield the desired conclusion regarding Israel; while (2) they DON'T reach an undesired conclusion regarding large numbers of other countries/groups.
But perhaps this exchange will be different. So . . . .
You claim that Israel "obviously did genocide when the State was founded" What do you mean by "genocide"?
You claim that Israel has "some elements of apartheid" What do you mean by "apartheid" and what elements are you referring to?
This is obviously genocide. Palestinians didn’t leave Israel because they wanted to. They left because Jews were killing them. It’s backed by declassified Israel intel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#:~:text=During%20the%201948%20Palestine%20war,an%20instance%20of%20ethnic%20cleansing.
Israel would never let political power shift to a point that Jews do not have overwhelming decision making ability. That’s apartheid.
Not sure why people need to insist Jews have never done anything bad. Or perhaps in this case normal things nation-states do to creat country’s.
I am making no claim that other country’s including the US haven’t done similar things. We genocide the Indian which I’m fine with.
Ok, so if some some or all members of Group A flee an area because some members of the same Group A are being killed by members of Group B, then it's "genocide" according to your definition. Agreed?
Ok, so if some Group A has control of a country; and that Group A is determined not to let any Group B undermine that control, it's "apartheid" according to your definition. Agreed?
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Can you give a few specific examples of people "insist[ing] Jews have never done anything bad"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Genocide or ethnic cleansing?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
American authorities have done this regularly since at least the 1983 Beirut bombing, through the attack on the Cole, and the Kabul bombing just a few years back. Maybe their definition is slightly more consistent if you expected uniforms while doing combat actions, but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" isn't completely wrong either.
More options
Context Copy link
So if a mail bomb is sent to some IDF recruit by Hezbhollah to blow up inside his house then that's not terrorism because it's a military target?
It's not the target that is exceptional here, it's the clandestine appropriation of a consumer supply chain as a weapon. That is actually unprecedented, it's a method of warfare that fundamentally erodes global trust in economic trade and cooperation, it is far more unusual than a blockade of a Strait in the middle of an existential war. As to the semantics, feel free to not call it terrorism if it makes you feel better, even though you would call it that if/when bombs are set off inside the homes of Israeli or US troops.
Spitting in the food in the back kitchen isn't such an enormous taboo because of the direct consequences, but because none of us want to live in a world where that is remotely acceptable behavior, we want to trust our food has been handled properly and not question it when we sit down to eat. But people here defending the planting of hidden explosives in consumer goods can't seem to wrap their minds around those consequences. Why is Hezbollah such a dangerous enemy Israel has to normalize spitting in the food as a method of warfare?
If Hezbollah were genuinely targeting a specific soldier, I wouldn't call that terrorism, especially if Hezbollah had the option of destroying the entire neighborhood the soldier lived in but instead decided to use a mail bomb. I would object for other reasons, but I wouldn't call it terrorism.
As far as blockades go, I agree that the rules of war do not have a general prohibition on naval blockades. However, I recall the following:
(1) A blockade must be directed at enemy territory, as distinguished from a blockade of the high seas or of an international waterway. Thus, if the Iranian Navy blockaded the Port of San Diego, this would arguably conform to the rules of war. But I doubt that blockading the Strait of Hormuz would conform.
(2) The blockading state must not play favorites, i.e. the blockade must be enforced against all states, friendly or not.
I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like this is an illegal blockade. Of course I am open to being corrected.
Sorry, I don't believe you. If you had hundreds of bombs going off inside houses, bedrooms, with kids around, in grocery stores, churches, everyone would call it terrorism if the tables were turned.
Well, I have many posts here, many of which touch on the Arab-Israel conflict. I challenge you to identify one post where (1) Hezbollah or any other adversary of Israel launched an attack at an Israeli soldier; and (2) I referred to the incident as "terrorism."
I made no claim in my post about what other people would say. In any event, I'm not sure who you are referring to by "everyone." I doubt you mean literally "everyone."
What I can see happening, possibly, is Hezbollah and its ilk trying to put a fig leaf over its terrorism by claiming they were actually targeting soldiers. Of course that's an issue of fact to be determined from the context.
BTW are you conceding on the blockade issue, i.e. you don't dispute my points about international waterways and selectivity?
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