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 used to think there were principled arguments against Israel and that it made sense to distinguish between anti-Zionists and anti-Semites. I found it annoying when Jews would equate opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism. It felt very manipulative, playing the "antisemitism" card when we're talking about objections to a nation's policies... And of course Israel is a country, countries are made of people and run by politicians, therefore Israel is often going to do things one can reasonably condemn.
I still believe there are a tiny number of people whose opposition to Israel is rooted in genuine principles. I think their arguments are mostly pretty unconvincing, but the New Historians, for example (a school of Israeli historians who are generally pretty critical of Israel and the Israeli narrative about its founding, but obviously don't literally want Israel to cease to exist... Benny Morris is the most notable one) are examples of "anti-Zionists but not anti-Semites."
But mostly, especially since the latest Gaza War, I no longer take criticism of Israel at face value. Sure, a lot of stuff Israel does is fucked up, a lot of stuff the US does is fucked up, and I would like all countries in the world to do fewer fucked up things. Kumbaya.
But in most places, definitely including here on the Motte, you can map with nearly 100% consistency someone who is "critical of Israel" or "anti-Zionist" to "really hates Jews." It's just become very obvious that you don't have to scratch an anti-Zionist too deeply to find someone who hates Jews. It's true out in the public amongst the "Free Palestine" demonstrators, it's true here among the posters who suddenly have deep humanitarian concern for Palestinians and Iranians. Do they have similar concerns for, say, Ukrainians and Russians? Or the participants and victims in any other conflict anywhere else in the world? Of course not.
Since October 7, demonstrators attacking anything remotely connected with Israel, whether it's an Israeli-run bakery or just a synagogue (which can always be accused of being "Zionist" because the number of synagogues that aren't full of Israel supporters is infinitesimal) have pretty much given the game away. When you claim you don't hate Jews, you just hate like 90% of all Jews, well, that kinda looks like you hate Jews to me.
So, your lengthy defense of Israel isn't wrong, but it's beside the point. Almost nobody is actually criticizing Israel because they think the Israelis should negotiate differently or if they just did this or that they could have peace. There are no circumstances in which Israel will ever be "okay" with them. They just hate Jews. Simple as.
I think you might be focusing a little too much on those on the Motte?
My experience is that there are three to five groups of people who are loudly anti-Israel in Western countries.
The right-wing anti-semites. This is the most popular group on the Motte, and you describe them pretty accurately. There are plenty of people who hate Jews for reasons that are more-or-less in the ballpark of far-right or neo-Nazi ideas; usually this comes with a racialist theory where Jews are a uniquely malevolent or parasitic group never acting in good faith, who exert disproportionate influence over Western countries. Often this group has a kind of private admiration for Israel, in that the state of Israel behaves towards Jews the way that they would like their country (or countries) to behave towards whites. Outside places like the Motte, and to an extent even here, this group likes to disguise or misrepresent its motives, usually because they realise that their whole platform is very unpopular in the West. Suddenly discovering empathy for poor Palestinians despite otherwise being heedless of Arab lives is an easy tell.
The left-wing anti-semites. I think you combine these with their right-wing counterparts, but I find it taxonomically useful to distinguish them. These are the ones who go all-in on the idea that Israel isn't really a country and settler-colonial states are inherently illegitimate and chant "from the river to the sea" on campuses. Whether the motive here is technically anti-semitism is debatable, particularly because there is a small but real number of Jews in this group, which the rest like to hold up as symbols, even as they go around loudly demanding that institutions divest themselves from all Jewish groups, or from anything related to Israel, or even just harass ordinary Jews who have failed to clearly denounce Israel. I called these group 'anti-semites' because I think they do associate all Jews (who have not clearly disaffiliated themselves from Israel) with Israel and will attack people just for being publicly Jewish; and because as far as can reasonably be discerned their actual position is that Israel should be destroyed.
(2a?) Left-wing bleeding hearts who haven't updated their beliefs for decades. I run into a lot of these in real life. It's probably fair to view them as the moderate wing of the anti-Israel left, or perhaps the anti-semites as the extremist wing of the anti-Israel left. But basically take the group I described in 2 but dial it down to people who really care about Palestinian lives, support a two-state solution, would be mortified at any implication that they're hostile to Jews, and generally ignore the existence of their more extreme counterparts.
The nationalists. This group largely codes right at the moment, but in the past has been more diverse and I think has room for some leftists in it. It's the one that says basically, "Why are we supporting this small, violent country? What's in it for us?" Unlike the first two, I don't think this one is particularly anti-semitic. Undoubtedly it's true that near-unconditional support for Israel has been a pillar of American foreign policy for decades, and it's understandable for parts of the American electorate to ask why, particularly as Israel seems to, whether intentionally or not, keep dragging America into conflicts that it does not seem in America's interests to fight. They stand out among the other groups for being relatively amoral - they do not care who's in the right, they do not care about Palestinian lives or welfare, and they will not litigate the last eighty years of Israel-Palestine conflict with you. They do not care. They will just ask - why are we involved in this mess?
Migrants. This group is fairly obvious. Some are Palestinians themselves, many are Muslims, many are from countries like Syria, Lebanon, or Egypt, and therefore have very explicable reasons for hating Israel. There's a very common belief in the Islamic world that Palestine is a 'nation of martyrs', and though this sometimes annoys other Muslims who feel that their persecution is downplayed or ignored (Kashmiri, Chechens, Rohingya, Uighurs, etc.), but nonetheless it is pretty universally accepted. I posted about one of these in Australia last year. This group is often significant among their own communities but are trapped in those bubbles and often ignored in the wider discourse, though sometimes one makes it into politics and becomes more widely known.
More options
Context Copy link
I assume you’re a well-informed poster. You and I and everyone on this board surely knows well that ‘Free Palestine’ groups claim to be anti-colonialist, anti-racist and leftist, plus supporters of the concept of national liberation and also of BLM, for example. Their opposition to Israel’s policies rather obviously stem from this ideology and not from a general hatred of the Jewish people and not from a hard opposition towards the concept of a Jewish state in itself, as they view Israel as a white supremacist, unrepentant, aggressor settler state, and many of their members and supporters are themselves Jews. We can, of course, make all sorts of criticism of them, but this needs to be admitted. I guess we can go so far as to call them anti-white, since they see Israeli settlers and Zionists as white. At the same time, not only is their rhetoric not anti-Semitic, they do not tolerate anti-Semitism either, especially not within their own ranks.
Obviously these groups have existed before October 7th, in fact they have existed for a long time, and their ideological rhetoric against Israeli colonialism was also deployed against the US political system, which they view as structurally racist and neo-colonialist. Back when BLM was more relevant, it was the latter that was getting these activists more media attention, and I can only assume that this made many people forget that these groups are also anti-Zionist, and that accusations of anti-Semitism do not work against them at all, for the simple reason that they genuinely do not see themselves as anti-Semitic and thus do not consider themselves compelled to apologize. It’s similar to the case of the ‘Democrats are the real racists’ narrative, which does not work on Democrats one bit.
To the extent that US political opposition towards Zionism and the Zionist lobby exists outside the leftist, anti-racist, anti-colonialist milieu, I think it’s fair to say that it all stems from isolationism, to the extent that it still even exists. And the common attribute of isolationists is that they wish to isolate the US from other conflict regions in the world as well, not just Israel, so I don’t think accusations of anti-Semitism apply in their case either.
More options
Context Copy link
I reached the same verdict in the UK when:
Maybe you could claim this is just guilt by association but organised anti-zionism here does not exist as a movement distinct from anti-semitism. In no other area of politics would supposedly very different groups with completely incompatible motives act in lockstep. The National Front doesn't march hand in hand with the Tories, for instance. So I can only conclude they are not, in fact, different. As for the argument that they can't be excluded for strategic turnout reasons, if your hundreds of thousands strong movement needs them that badly to function, then they can't be a minority of bad apples, can they?
And of course theres the issue where effectively every group claiming to be motivated by human rights was demonstrated to be lying back in 2020, but that's more a me thing.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a completely rational and a smart way to think and a completely rational and smart thing to say anywhere in the world except in a forum where we agree to deal with each other's arguments as stated and not the nefarious motives we imagine behind the arguments.
More options
Context Copy link
Am I super autistic or just a unicorn or I don’t technically fall under this definition: “ you can map with nearly 100% consistency someone who is "critical of Israel" or "anti-Zionist" to "really hates Jews."
I’m not anti-Zionists. I guess might makes right? I am critical of Israel. I hate the ADL. I hate AIPAC and how they interfere with our elections. I also have many Jewish friends. Tonight I made dinner for an Orthodox Jew from Brooklyn. I get concerned that 75% of the largest political donations in the 2020 election were Jewish. I semi-like Larry Ellisons new media empire because I think it will back the right but still concerned that he’s a Jew and could turn on my interests at a future point.
So yes I get concerned that 1% of the population with super high incomes that will generate half of the richest people in my country and 40% of the Nobel Laureates might have interests that disagree with my interests.
Because the move from critiquing institutions like the ADL or AIPAC to gesturing at “Jews” as a coherent bloc with aligned interests is where the analysis tends to degrade. It collapses a wide range of individuals, incentives, and internal disagreements into a kind of ethnic shorthand that explains too much and therefore explains very little. At that point, it begins to resemble the exact pattern Amadan is pointing to when he talks about criticism of Israel bleeding into garden variety joo poasting. I'm not particularly sensitive to charges of antisemitism but it just makes the conversation tiring.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link