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 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.
It's "anti-successful population," of which anti-semitism is a named subcategory.
Or "anti-Western," for a somewhat broad category of West that might include Korea and Japan. "Anti-civilization" would be more accurate but almost none of them actually conceive of themselves that way.
Likewise, self-hating Jew is a common enough subcategory of oikophobia that it has its own wiki page.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, that's most of the ones I onow: "I heard on the news/social media that Israel just killed a kid! Why can't they just stop killing Palestinians and get along?"
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I think that it's anti-Semitism in the same way that white college professors who are anti-white are racist. I think that the basic playbook for Leftist types is to aggrandize themselves by claiming moral superiority over others. Ok, suppose some tribe in some African sh*thole is massacring another tribe. If Leftists make a fuss about it, the message is "we're morally superior to some barbaric tribe in Africa." Which, at some level, they know isn't saying much. It's much more impressive to say "We're morally superior to the Jews!!"
Generally speaking, I agree, although I think a lot of anti-Semites hide in this group. One thing that gives the game away is they are outraged about US military aid to Israel but don't seem to mind that the US spends a lot of resources (both money and personnel) in South Korea, Germany, Bahrain, etc. They are outraged about dual US/Israel citizens but don't really care about dual US/UK citizens. This selectivity suggests that something besides isolationism is motivating their isolationism.
But when was the last time the UK dragged the US into a war? If the Israelis are causing problems and the British aren't, it makes sense to only be outraged at one of them.
If 25 years ago there were dual US/UK citizens who had the ears of Parliament and the Prime Minister and were advocating for the UK to send troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, I would not begrudge other UK citizens for being suspicious of them and thinking that their arguments are not based on what's good for the UK.
1917? 1941? Grenada? Arguably some/all of the fallout of the post-WWII drama in the Middle East? The British were involved in putting the Shah in charge in Iran, for example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Devil's advocate: Germany is far less likely to result in US forces/materiel being lost. If you assume the "Israeli aggression causes all Middle-east ills" line of thought, which I do not, you can even squeeze Bahrain into the same category as Germany, and I believe Bahrain also provides the US with an important naval port.
At the moment, I agree. Although (1) I note that you didn't mention South Korea; (2) at times during the Cold War, there was much more serious concern about a Soviet invasion of Berlin; (3) there are very few US troops actually stationed in Israel; and (4) the US has formally committed to defending numerous countries if attacked, and this does not include Israel.
But how important is it if you are an isolationist? It seems to me the isolationist position is "just buy oil from whomever is in control and develop our own resources to the point where we don't need foreign oil any more."
I don't find NK to be a threat to the South or the troops stationed there, personally, so I'd put it in a similar category as Germany. The SK relationship is (at this point in time) pretty directly anti-Chinese.
Again, doesn't really fly with the isolationist viewpoint, but I could imagine them saying something like "yes, we should be withdrawing from these countries as well, but our relationship with Israel is the most pressing in terms of harm/cost to personnel/materiel."
I wouldn't say that, mind you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was originally going to agree with Amadan but then you reminded me these people existed - however in my experience they tend to act like information less wokes who can't discuss the situation at all or provide any solutions, only suggest that Israel is bad and should go away. In this way they carry water for the actual anti-semites.
I was thinking particularly of a few people I know in church groups - white people in their 60s who will host viewings of movies about Palestinian issues, or have 'Free Palestine' bumper stickers on their cars, or aggressively recommend books about the issue, and generally seem like they have never gotten past the 90s or early 2000s. I see them get fully behind groups like Kairos Palestine, or boosting people like Munther Isaac.
In my experience these are centre-left voters, think of themselves as multicultural and very sympathetic to Jews and Judaism, and view it as a non-sectarian human rights issue.
I think it is correct that they effectively carry water for real anti-semites (Munther Isaac, for instance, I think is noticeably anti-semitic), but they are largely useful idiots, rather than malicious themselves.
Hmmm yes that makes sense.
I do think you have real room to argue that the water carrying becomes something in truth especially once protesting happens, and sometimes voting - if you vote for the jew-killing party then you share some culpability when they do it, and anti-Israel is a large part of the Dems these days regardless of if they want it. It's not an incidental aspect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd broadly agree with the 1 camp without being anti-Israeli. It's a bit annoying that they've historically been able to conduct themselves in a manner that'd get any equivalent Western nation absolutely pilloried with minimal media/public censure (until they've lost control of the narrative recently) but I believe that in terms of maximizing utilitarian outcomes the world should be more tolerant of actions of that caliber. Plus if in the situation where the Palestinians had a similar level of dominance over the Israelis they'd be acting significantly worse.
I do also feel a certain schadenfraude when it comes to Jewish people who were used to/didn't see the inherent contradiction in the previous social meta of 'Israel is a special case and doesn't get criticized for boundary pushing' and are trying to hammer the anti-semitism meme a bit too hard. Especially when Jewish thinkers/media influence was made to curate an environment where they got given special exemption status instead of a broader laissez faire attitude.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link