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 would say it would be disingenuous if one were to ignore (1) Iran's threats to wipe Israel off the map; (2) it's incessant proxy attacks against Israel; and (3) it's decision to enrich Uranium in deep underground bunkers.
I think that @2rafa asked a key question: If the 1979 revolution had not taken place in Iran, would Israel and Iran be fighting each other right now? It seems pretty clear that the answer is "no." And if the answer is "no," what changed?
Here's another question to ask: What was the very first significant act of military hostility by Israel towards Iran since 1947?
That is not at all a clear answer given that Israel has been hostile to relatively secular regimes like Nasser, Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad. Why would the Shah in this counterfactual not be included in that list of Israel's enemies? If it were like Syria, Israel would leverage fundamentalist elements in Iran to destabilize the regime and undermine the Shah like it did in Syria.
Because Israel is a threat to Iran. Israel has spent decades overtly planning for a war with Iran and petitioning the United States to attack Iran. Keep in mind Israel supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war to provide a counterweight to Iraq. Then they take out Iraq by subverting the US foreign policy apparatus and overtly agitate for US to wage war on Iran. They take out Gaddafi (who was actually attempting to cooperate with demands placed on him), Assad, and by all accounts Iran is the crowned jewel of this policy strategy. Do you stop to think maybe that Iranian rhetoric is downstream from Israel's openly admitted foreign policy objectives and actions in pursuing highly destructive regime change throughout the region?
Rallying the country against Israel is fundamentally necessary for the survival of the regime because of Israel's own political strategy.
Syria's new leader was affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS! So why is his ascension over Assad considered such a huge win by Israel and US if this is ultimately about combatting religious extremism in favor of secular leadership? Doesn't that blow the entire "it was the Islamic Revolution's fault" theory out of the water? Israel WANTS an ISIS affiliate to lead Syria instead of Assad. How does this reality correspond to your impression here when it perfectly fits mine?
Edit: It's actually funnier the more you think about. Syria had Israel leveraging radical Islamist groups against the relatively secular Assad regime. Iran had Israel leveraging relatively secular monarchists against the Islamist regime. The only common denominator is Israel's objective to destabilize and destroy its rivals, it's not about fighting Islamism.
Well do you agree that before 1979, Israel and Iran were not hostile to each other? If so, what changed in 1979?
In that case, it should be pretty easy to answer my question:
What was the very first significant act of military hostility by Israel towards Iran since 1947?
When did this overt planning and petitioning start? What month and year?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link