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 -
What is the Zionist model of antisemitism*?
Matt Yglesias posted what turned out to be a surprisingly hot take that the downturn in public opinion of Israel is a result of Israeli actions, and that the best way for Israel to fix its public relations problem is to change its actions vis-a-vis the Palestinian issue and foreign policy.
I was surprised at the pushback. This seems straightforwardly true. There was a great chart I saw a few days ago, which I am unfortunately unable to find, which showed that public opinion of Israel has been approximately this low before. It was in 1982 with the invasion of Lebanon and the notoriously brutal siege of Beirut.
Most of the alternative theories fell into two camps.
It’s hard to tell how religious the people in 2. are, but my general impression is, “quite a bit”. Many of them seem to speak of antisemitism as if it were a spiritual fault, another manifestation of the platonic ideal of pure evil. Seen as a spiritual problem, the correct response is to become even more aggressively Jewish. This has the rather large problem of being counterproductive when, e.g. smashing idols goes wrong.
*By “antisemitism” in this post I almost exclusively mean “antizionism”. I use the term to maintain consistency with the pro-Israel literature I am engaging with, not as an endorsement that antizionism = antisemitism.
The inevitable fate of basically every term is to be distorted both as an attack and distorted as a defense. The strategy of both Israel and the actual antisemites has been the same here, to link Israel and the general Jewish population as inherently linked.
Israel links them as a defense to criticism of their actions. The antisemites link them as a way to smear general Jews. But they both do agree, the two are linked.
The Israel strategy actually worked for a short time, just like the woke strategy did. The general US population was generally supportive of Israel! Just like they were generally supportive of some DEI policies. But now views have effectively reversed in the US and antisemitism is growing. The "your criticisms are bigoted" defense only seems to work for a short period, eventually they start speaking up again and some even turn more bigoted in response, especially since the defense is also "the two are linked". Israel after all has told people who have problems with their behavior, that they must also have problems with Jews in general.
Let's go over the two theories you put as well
Then one must ask why is this anti Israel misinformation so much more potent now? It's not as if antisemitic propaganda is a new phenomenon, what has changed to make it more effective? I've shared one of my theories above.
You also gotta appreciate the irony here of "we need more control over information" given the common antisemitic trope of Jews wanting control over information.
So again, why is antisemitism apparently increasing then? It's the same exact question that leftists fail to answer when companies raise their prices due to "greed". If it's such an intrinsic thing, what is the difference between now and then?.
Meanwhile "Israeli actions actually do impact how people view Israel" is a pretty strong explanation for why people change their views. Maybe stuff like letting soldiers who sexually assaulted and abused a prisoner on video get off scot free might actually make people dislike you. Maybe some people who would otherwise support you don't like it when there's video of your soldiers shooting a young boy, standing around not rendering aid, and seemingly framing him by placing a rock near to say he was throwing it.
Another hypothesis I want to consider is the switch from text-based news and commentary to audiovisual news and commentary. It's easy enough to defend Israel over text. Jews needed a place to go after the holocaust. Mandatory Palestine had a thriving Jewish community thanks to the British and early Zionists. The PLO did a lot of extraterritorial terrorist attacks you can rattle off. They bombed a damn pizza place. It's not until you've seen the bombed-out remains of Gaza or Lebanon, talked to the guy in the West Bank who used to have an olive grove on the other side of that hill but can never get to it ever since the settlers moved in, and seen the literal walls that separate the Jewish part of Hebron from the Arab part of Hebron that you realize what a mess the whole thing turned into.
More options
Context Copy link
Woke.
That could explain anti-Israel/antisemitism sentiment growing among the left but those views are not exclusive to the left. But weirdly enough among some groups, there is a negative correlation from embracing anti-Israel and embracing the antisemitic views.
So seemingly the woker you are, the more anti Israel you are but less antisemitic. Or at least less explicit in it.
You basically answered your own question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and people conflating this with historical antisemitism are pretty clearly off the mark. You can't explain it with reference to, idk, shylock or the dreyfus affair (do 5% of Americans know who alfred dreyfus was?)
To the antiracist left/liberal, Jews are white colonialists and Arabs are brown natives. There is very little that the oppressed can do against their oppressors that deserves full-throated condemnation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You've got two classes here: Anti-semites and Israelis, and you note that both of them want to link Israel to the general jewish population.
The general jewish population is also a class, no? What do they want with regard to the connection of Israel and themselves?
Do you, personally, believe that Israel has a right to exist as "a Jewish and Democratic state"?
Do you, personally, believe that a state can in practical terms be both "Jewish" and "Democratic" in the commonly-understood definitions of those terms? That is, assuming the general positive-valence progressive understanding of "Democracy" as a social system, do you think "Democracy" is broadly compatible with an explicit ethno-state?
What are the bounds of discourse? It's pretty clear how much criticism of Israel is acceptable to Israel (little to none) and how much is acceptable to antisemites (almost all to all). I think it's pretty clear that the general jewish population likewise has something like coherent bounds on the amount of criticism of Israel they consider acceptable; are those bounds closer to the Israeli limits or the antisemite limits?
You appear to want to limit this discussion to Israel and the Antisemites, since both of these are your outgroup. But the general jewish population is a cohesive social cluster, and one that is not, to put it delicately, a complete stranger to the organization and exercise of political power. My observation is that the general jewish population is strongly supportive of Israel as a state, as they have been for decades. Criticism of specific actions of Israel or its agents does not change this fact.
I used to be very strongly pro-Israel. I went very strongly anti-Israel when I went blue. Now I am committed to, as best as I am able, no longer having an opinion on the matter either way. If your strategy is otherwise, I wish you the best with dodging the antisemite label yourself, but do not expect your dodging to work. I do not think you or your coalition generally will be able to carve out a stable middle-ground where "antisemite" retains its negative valence and yet effective, consequential criticism builds toward an effective social consensus. I think a major reason this will not happen is because the general Jewish population does not want it to happen, and will organize against you to keep it from happening. When they start calling you a Nazi, know that to at least a minor extent, you have my sympathies, and my hope that the experience is educational for you.
Rights are irrelevant. It is impossible to have a Jewish, democratic state in the territory currently controlled by Israel because that territory contains more Palestinians than non-Haredi Jews, and without a genocide (real or technical) is likely to continue to do so. (And even if a multiethnic democracy with Jewish character was possible, neither Israeli Jews nor Palestinians have any interest in attempting it).
Both the current governing coalition in Israel (led by Netanyahu) and the most popular opposition party (led by Naftali Bennett) claim to be committed to a Jewish state including the vast majority of the West Bank, which implies either permanent apartheid (with the Palestinians continuing to be treated worse than any minority group in any country which expects credit for being a "democracy") or a Final Solution to the Palestinian problem. I don't think either Bennett or Netanyahu or most of their supporters are actually thinking in terms of Final Solutions, but Netanyahu's coalition includes Kahanists who definitely are and Bennett ran on a joint list with them before he adopted big-tent anti-Netanyahu politics.
None of this implies that that the current Israeli government is as evil as Hamas, but when Germany play Argentina in the World Cup you don't have to hold your nose and root for the lesser evil, if you are a good person you can go touch grass, and if you are a bad person you can buy popcorn and root for injuries.
Absolutely, and inside-the-Green-Line Israel was (and still is, in so far as it can be conceived of separately from the West Bank settlements). A democracy whose character reflects the shared culture of the voting majority while acknowledging the rights as individual humans and citizens of members of ethnic minorities is a solved problem. But building that Jewish democracy was only possibly with a supermajority-Jewish population.
This is the sort of answer I would expect, yes.
How did that particular chunk of land get to be supermajority Jewish? If we handwave how it was established, what policies are acceptable in keeping it supermajority Jewish? If they build a wall and refuse all non-jewish immigrants, is that an acceptable policy just for them, or should other states be permitted to act in a similar way?
My point is obvious, I think; progressive values and principles are flatly incompatible with the function and form of Israel as a state, this incompatibility is severe enough that it probably cannot be maintained in the long term, and that this fact presents a serious dilemma to western Jewish people who have heretofore been closely aligned with progressive politics.
More options
Context Copy link
It's never, ever, coming home, mate.
In the spirit of this bet, I wonder whether peace will come to the Middle East before England wins a World Cup. But sports fandom isn't supposed to be rational, and I don't bet on England games for that reason. A hundred years of hurt isn't going to stop me dreaming...
For whatever it's worth, I had basically lost all hope by 2022 and "we" then proceeded to win the world cup and then elect a libertarian.
Gotta keep dreaming.
From your n=1 sample, how has that changed, for better or worse, your daily life?
In the very short term, my relative salary went down, since there was a "price rearrangement" (lots of inflation without currency devaluation) and I was working for a foreign company. Later on, said adjustment meant professional salaries became competitive enough to the point of being able to get a job here, which is convenient for a variety of reasons. Most of my peer group's (of those that hadn't already emigrated) income was significantly boosted. Also, wokeness stopped being institutionally mandated and electorally viable, which is nice.
Overall my purchasing power has diminished (eating out is more expensive, as is meat), but it's compensated with a variety of psychological benefits.
This is, of course, how it affected me personally, and I am fairly isolated from the negative effects of most governments, if you want my opinion of the overall impact: as with all Trumpian Bargains, it has been a mixed bag, but I think it was overall very positive, and I'm optimistic. That being said, it has been a very painful process for a lot of people, and I'm kind of proud (of the people) that the midterms were as good as they were despite this.
More options
Context Copy link
The world cup or the government change?
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
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn't say the general Jewish population is as easy of a class to read here. Lots of individual Jews will have different opinions with different nuances. It might statistically skew one way or the other, but there will be important variance from one to another.
Israel is easy because it's specifically the actions and rhetoric of the current Israeli government. Antisemites is an easy class simply due to the category itself (when properly applied) inherently being people who would want the Jews to look bad and be hated.
I think it can be democratic and made up primarily of Jews, but I agree that explicit ethno-state and democracy struggle to be compatible with one another. Especially one based at least somewhat around religion. It's unlikely, but what if a significant portion of the citizens turned Buddhist or something? Seems to me they still should have a voice.
I disagree, even with the people who "support Israel as a state" lies a ton of different nuance. Supporting the concept of Israel as a safe space for the Jewish people doesn't necessarily mean they support all of the expansionism or genocidal policies of the current Israeli government. Heck, one of the most rabidly anti Israeli left wingers I know is an ethnic Jew himself. That's not very common, but this is the sort of thing I mean by not wanting to treat Jews as a "cohesive class". There's lots of different parts to the topic and different people will have various nuanced views on each. And people can change their minds too so I'm not gonna write everyone off from their ethnicity. Hell even within Israel, some of the literal soldiers committing abuses have come to regret it. Now there comes a point where forgiveness isn't enough, and abusing/murdering innocents is far past that line but it is a display of how people do change their views.
Lots of individuals having different opinions with different nuances is irrelevant, when the sum of those nuances skews heavily one way or the other. I'm reliably informed that ten Jewish people will hold eleven different positions on a topic, and yet our government consistently provides large-scale economic and military aid to Israel, provides Israel with powerful diplomatic cover, and even, in your assessment, fights wars on Israel's behalf, and it does not appear to me that the general jewish population is interested in seeing these policies change. It is evident to me that one of the strongest bulwarks against these policies changing has been accusations of antisemitism against those advocating such changes.
From my perspective, the question is whether the category is properly applied, and what you intend to do if you find it is being misapplied. If you or your coalition could meaningfully police the application of the term to only those areas where it was appropriate, the problem could easily be solved. But the problem is that Antisemitism is, at its core, a term that the general jewish population owns, and to the extent that they in general disagree with you over where and when it should be applied, the sum of their opinions will be dispositive.
In your view, what does the phrase "general [x] population" mean, and why do you use it if you believe that it can be overridden by anecdotal examples?
I often find that my ingroup contains infinite, fractal complexity when criticisms of its collective behavior are presented, so it seems we are as brothers in this matter. And yet, I also find that large-scale populations are capable of coordinated action in the pursuit of long-term goals. If I can engage productively with criticisms of Christians or Muslims, men or women, Blues or Reds, Boomers or "the kids today", it is not obvious to me why "the general jewish population" alone should be an amorphous enigma of which no concrete critique can be made, other than the observation that when such critiques are made, the person making them is inevitably labeled an antisemite.
I don't doubt that some of them have. I do doubt that the general jewish population is interested in bolstering that regret through actual policy consequences. I think many Israelis regretted their involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacres; I saw a movie they made about it once. And yet, I note that such regret did not result in legible justice toward those involved, and the commander who coordinated their involvement still got to be Prime Minister, and most of those who thought this was a bad thing did not, for example, think it was a bad enough thing to really do much about it.
It does not seem to me that these observations amount to "writing off people for their ethnicity"; no society is perfectly just, but some societies are trying for something I recognize as justice, and other societies are not. If you consider Israel an unjust society, what do you think should happen as a consequence? What do you think will happen as a consequence? What role do you expect the general Jewish population to play in the transition from ought to is?
This is true, but it does not mean that those accusations have been false.
And certainly there are a lot of American Jews who don't like Netanyahu or don't like various actions Israel has taken. There are very few who want Israel to cease to exist as a Jewish state.
When considering the culture war as a whole, would you say that accusations of racism or sexism have generally been false?
Yes. This is my point. There are significant differences between "I don't like this" and "I think something should be done about this" and "I am willing to fight to see something done about this". With regard to the general Jewish population, negative attitudes toward Israel cluster around the first of these, and the last of these are very, very rare.
There certainly have been more false claims than true ones. Though not evenly distributed. For anti-semitism as applied to those opposing support for Israel, I believe the claims are mostly true in the US -- the bulk of the people actively opposing supporting Israel (as a whole; many will argue over details) are anti-semitic, and most of the rest are useful idiots who don't know which river or what sea.
I don't recall whether you've laid out your political history in the past. Were you a blue, once upon a time? Did you have the experience of getting in a fight with other blues, and reaching for common ground and solidarity, only to have those appeals rejected out of hand because your refusal to get in line was considered proof that you were an ist or a phobe of some description? If you did, how did it incline you toward the people who treated you so?
Back in the day, before I made the decision to no longer have opinions on the subject, I lost count of the times I was called a nazi and an antisemite for arguing in favor of what appeared to me to be basic, foundational moral and legal values when it came to Israel's policies and the behavior of its agents. I stopped having those arguments, and indeed stopped consuming news about Israel or its various conflicts, because I realized I was becoming legitimately antisemitic through frustration and disgust with the behavior of my opposites and their coalition. And for what it's worth, with some years of remove, I can recognize that I bought into extremely foolish underdog narratives of the other side, and gave them a pass for their own crimes and atrocities because they were committed against the side I saw as more in the wrong. This was stupid, but it didn't spring from congenital hatred of Jews, it came from the observation of entrenched and fattened callousness and injustice. You might say I believed I was judging them by the content of their character.
Now, I no longer have an opinion on the subject. This statement is not a pose or a linguistic strategy; I do not want and will not allow myself to have an opinion, to root for a side. I have done my best to cauterize the portion of my brain previously dedicated to such concerns, and this is a policy I intend to maintain for the rest of my life. My conclusion is that the land is cursed, and people generally would be well-advised to live elsewhere.
That being said, as someone who has been through this from the opposite side and is watching the shifting sands of ideology, I think the sort of reflexive dismissal you and many others have deployed on this topic doesn't seem like it's working well long-term.
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
More options
Context Copy link
I don't understand these questions and you seem reasonable and have good takes.
What if my answers are:
yes, kind of. I don't really think any state has a "right" to exist all that much. However I think states that are able to enforce their existence on planet earth should probably exist, and I'm generally against people trying to make other states not exist, even if they perhaps could pull it off.
absolutely. I think Isreal can be run by Jews and have leaders elected by popular vote. You could also absolutely have an ethnostate that has a democracy. I don't think "universal suffrage" is required for democracy, although it is preferable.
These questions seem so basic I feel like I'm missing something.
I'm not FCfromSSC, but a common belief, I'd argue a defining belief, of modern progressivism, and even most of the center left, is that democracy is invalid when people either vote for specific positions or vote for leaders who espouse specific positions.* Witness how, and this it not just in the US, the terms 'democratic' and 'populist' are very much separate terms with 'populism' being argued to be anti-democratic since its policy go against what is considered valid in a democracy by the mainstream progressive left. You can even see this outside of the US: if you read El País (rough Spanish equivalent to the NYT) they describe pretty much every figure on the right as an 'Ultra' and talk about how they are all dangerous to democracy.
Almost all left wingers, especially those described as 'woke', consider ethno-nationalism to be illiberal enough that it's just not a valid/democratic platform to have. This is both openly stated by most left wingers, and it is even the law in many European countries that explicit arguments for an ethnostate are hate speech. If you apply woke standards to Israel, the entire project is considered illegitimate because the nation is literally founded on the "undemocratic" principle of ethnonationalism. Some center left figures ideologically argue that Israel deserves a carveout or the above viewpoint shouldn't be applied everywhere, but the straightforward application of 'wokism', or even the center left viewpoint on ethnonationalism, is that the political system of Israel is founded on undemocratic principles and is thus illegitimate.
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