site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   25725 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 27, 2026

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Israelis don’t make this mistake

Actually that's not totally true. Arab citizens of Israel enjoy some degree of affirmative action and Leftists in Israel are constantly pushing for the same sort of suicidal policies Leftists push for in every advanced nation.

The main differences are

(1) there are lots of Arabs in and around Israel that want to slaughter every last Jew and are aggressive, organized, and relentless about it; and

(2) the world is full of Jew-haters who inevitably blame all of this on the Israelis themselves; who twist everything in order to falsely accuse Israel of villainy; and who dismiss or ignore or defend the evil deeds of those who terrorize the Israeli people.

The ironic upshot of this persecution is that your typical Israeli is very conscious of the consequences of Leftist policies. So it's hard for the Left to get much purchase. Even so, Israel made the mistake of leaving Gaza -- with disasterous results.

Another factor is that Israel is the first advanced nation where a growing subpopulation of conservative religious types is starting to have real, general influence over internal politics. I would expect that the US is next in line to encounter such a phenomenon.

As a side note, it's worth pointing out that you yourself are one of the Jew-haters who, in effect, undermines the Left in Israel. For example, when a girl's school was blown up in Iran, I am pretty sure you were the person who was "confident" it was Israel that was responsible for the bombing. It's difficult to square this kind of arrogant and foolhardy rush to judgment with anything other than raw anti-Semitism. So probably conservatives in Israel owe you some degree of thanks.

For example, when a girl's school was blown up in Iran, I am pretty sure you were the person who was "confident" it was Israel that was responsible for the bombing

OK, so it wasn't an Israeli bomb, it was an American bomb. But the American attack was justified as defence of Israel both informally by Rubio and formally in America's justification... in a war that Israel was very keen on and has been encouraging for decades. Netanyahu has been telling tales of Iran being weeks or months away from a nuclear bomb since the 90s. Israel has been working proficiently to bring the US into this war and keep America in the war. It serves their strategic goals if America wrecks Iran.

Blaming Israel for an American airstrike in an Israeli war, that's arrogant and foolhardy anti-semitism.

There's no phrase in common use that efficiently encapsulates the waging of a war on dubious pretences with impractical goals, wrecking the world energy system, dragging in other countries to do the serious fighting via cajoling, bribery and relentless nuclear fearmongering.

This is my point about language and political weapons, anti-semitism is up there in the top tier, albeit somewhat strained with the workload resting upon it these days.

OK, so it wasn't an Israeli bomb, it was an American bomb. But the American attack was justified as defence of Israel both informally by Rubio and formally in America's justification... in a war that Israel was very keen on and has been encouraging for decades. Netanyahu has been telling tales of Iran being weeks or months away from a nuclear bomb since the 90s. Israel has been working proficiently to bring the US into this war and keep America in the war. It serves their strategic goals if America wrecks Iran.

Blaming Israel for an American airstrike in an Israeli war, that's arrogant and foolhardy anti-semitism.

You are weaseling here. If you had said that possibly America had dropped the bomb but even if it was the US, Israel still has some degree of responsibility, that would have been one thing. But what you said was something else. Of course, everyone makes mistakes but this one was revealing of the thought processes in your head. And it's pretty obvious that you are consumed by hatred for Israel. And it's pretty obvious why.

But I'm sort of curious: Do you think Jewish people bear any blame or responsibility for Australia's policy towards Aboriginal Australians?

You are weaseling here

You were the one insinuating that it was the Iranians that blew up their own school, which I said was debunked and silly, then you asked for a source for it being debunked, I provided it, then you said something like 'oh well even though it makes little sense to blow up their own school, Iran is such an awful country they might well do that kind of thing anyway'... What does that say about your thought process, I wonder? You imagine that your enemies are so comically evil they'll blow up their own schools just to make Israel look bad...

The US and Israel are peas in a pod with regard to this war. The US has adopted the Israeli stance of zero enrichment, an unverifiable demand. All of this in a war for Israel, since the US (if we look at a map) is not threatened by a nuclear Iran. The US is nowhere near Iran.

An American bomb or an Israeli bomb, does it really matter, in context? To you, perhaps. To the point I was making, about how this war has greatly angered the Iranians and provided strong incentives for heightened militarization? It doesn't matter at all. Do you think the Iranians see much distinction between the US and Israel at this point?

https://www.australianjewishnews.com/exploring-the-relationship-between-jewish-and-first-nations-people/

https://nswjbd.org.au/indigenous-and-jewish-australians-working-together/

Mabo's QC was Jewish, Spiegelman on the Freedom Rides and much else besides... there's abundant evidence of Jewish involvement in the aboriginal cause, such that they boast about it freely.

You were the one insinuating that it was the Iranians that blew up their own school, which I said was debunked and silly, then you asked for a source for it being debunked, I provided it, then you said something like 'oh well even though it makes little sense to blow up their own school, Iran is such an awful country they might well do that kind of thing anyway'...

Unfortunately for you, it's not too hard to go back and check the actual exchange. Unsurprisingly, your account is completely false.

Here's what happened:

Me:

What I am trying to say is that the Iranian government's hatred of Israel and desire for nuclear weapons was pretty maximal before the latest attack, so I doubt that this will provoke the reaction you predict.

You:

Well they did blow up a bunch of kids

Me:

So you are confident it was Israel who did that?

You:

Yes, the 'actually Iranian rockets blew up their own school' storyline has been debunked.

Me:

I'm very skeptical that any member of the general public could already know -- with confidence -- who was behind this situation. I'm also suspicious of your use of the passive voice. Can you please link to a source? TIA.

You:

Occam's razor suggests that if a school is bombed in a country being bombed, it is overwhelmingly likely that the country bombing it that did the bombing. There needs to be evidence to the contrary to support any alternate hypothesis

Me:

I don't necessarily agree, particularly given the nature of the countries involved. However it looks to me like there is a threshold issue, which is that you claimed you were confident that it is Israel who was behind the bombing . . . Given that the US is also involved in the war, how exactly does Occam's razor work here?

You:

[no response]

+++++++++++++++++++

So I was open to all possibilities, including the possibility that this was an Iranian missile that fell short. I didn't "insinuate" that Iran was (directly) responsible because I didn't know. But if I had accused Iran, I would own it. I wouldn't say something like "Well, akshually Iran was responsible for the missile because they provoked this war."

Of course I didn't rush to judgment against Iran, because I didn't know either way. You, on the other hand, arrogantly rushed to judgment against Israel even though I reminded you that the US was also involved in the war. Rather than own it, you now try to weasel out of your words.

An American bomb or an Israeli bomb, does it really matter, in context?

In the grand scheme of things, perhaps not. But that's not the point. The point is that your heart is so full of hatred for Jewish people, it didn't even occur to you that it might have been an American missile. You really wanted it to be true that Jews are so evil and so bloodthirsty that they targeted a girl's school.

Mabo's QC was Jewish, Spiegelman on the Freedom Rides and much else besides... there's abundant evidence of Jewish involvement in the aboriginal cause, such that they boast about it freely.

So that means "yes," right? You genuinely believe that Jewish people -- as a group -- bear significant responsibility and blame for Australia's policy towards Aboriginal Australians. Right?

Your obsession with the identity of the missile is bizarre, I'm not going to go into this anymore. Your main argument was silly and wrong. Bombing countries does in fact inspire hatred towards those who do bombing.

Here's what I said before this pathetic outburst of nitpicking:

However, Khameini's death means his fatwa against nuclear weapons no longer holds. If the IRGC take control, as militaries have been known to do in wartime, then we may see a much more militarized, nuclearized and aggressive Iran. They absolutely can and likely will hate Israel more than they hate them now! There are only so many regime-change attempts they can take before turning a latent nuclear program into a real nuclear program.

And here's what you said:

What I am trying to say is that the Iranian government's hatred of Israel and desire for nuclear weapons was pretty maximal before the latest attack, so I doubt that this will provoke the reaction you predict. At this point, the main thing for Israel (and the US) to do, to paraphrase the Untouchables, is the Chicago Way.

You said Iran was already maximally hateful towards Israel, maximally committed to nuclear weapons. Quite clearly they were not, for they would've acquired nuclear weapons over the last 30 years of breathless Israeli fearmongering and nuked Israel with them. They haven't done this because they just aren't as vengeful and hateful as Israel. Iran doesn't have any religious anniversaries to slaughtering Jews, like Jews have in Purim. Iraq invaded their country, gassed them, fought viciously all within living memory... they didn't nuke Iraq. But you say they'd nuke Israel, they just mysteriously have all this hate in their hearts and so they need to be destroyed in escalatory strikes, the Chicago Way...

It is obvious that blowing up refineries in Tehran and making thick toxic smog is going to make Iranians upset with Israel. Along with assassinating leaders. Along with blowing up schools, whether it's Israel or America that does it. This is basic, kindergarten-tier psychology that seemingly escapes you since you classified them all as jew-haters against whom escalation has only gains, not costs. The same goes the other way around, for what it's worth. Israelis aren't going to be thrilled with Iran making them cower in bomb shelters, interrupting their sleep.

Constantly calling everyone else liars isn't going to work out forever, not when people can see the results of these wars over imaginary WMDs for themselves. Forget about me, think about all the tens, hundreds of millions who are going to be developing anti-semitism when they try to buy some petrol.

You genuinely believe that Jewish people -- as a group -- bear significant responsibility and blame for Australia's policy towards Aboriginal Australians. Right?

Duh, obviously they are. They boast about it. They did all kinds of agitating and lobbying and legal work, even write little children's books about Reconciliation, they write whole articles (these are just a few) talking about how their Jewish values led them in that direction, tikkun olam and all that. Are you saying I should disbelieve all these Jewish sources, call them liars? Or is the Mabo case a bit of a nothingburger, not very important? Who's the anti-semite here?

Your obsession with the identity of the missile is bizarre

You're the one who is obsessed with the identity of the missile. Or rather, you were obsessed until it turned out the situation couldn't be twisted into a blood libel against Israel. I wish I could say that your obsession is bizarre, but unfortunately Jew hatred is all too common.

Anyway, the fact is that you misrepresented our exchange. I NEVER "insinuated" that Iran was responsible for the school situation; rather, I kept an open mind. See, I'm not a big fan of Iran but I'm not so consumed by hate that I can't think rationally.

You said Iran was already maximally hateful towards Israel, maximally committed to nuclear weapons. Quite clearly they were not, for they would've acquired nuclear weapons over the last 30 years of breathless Israeli fearmongering and nuked Israel with them.

I don't think this claim will stand up to scrutiny. Here's what I asked you last go-round. I would appreciate answers:

Well do you agree that

(1) enriching Uranium requires large amounts of specialized equipment, such as centrifuges;

(2) the Iranians did actually construct a facility with such centrifuges;

(3) those centrifuge facilities have been sabotaged and/or bombed?

It is obvious that blowing up refineries in Tehran and making thick toxic smog is going to make Iranians upset with Israel.

Well what do you think Iran is going to do against Israel now that it wouldn't otherwise have done, given that now they are REALLY pissed off?

Duh, obviously they are. They boast about it. They did all kinds of agitating and lobbying and legal work, even write little children's books about Reconciliation, they write whole articles (these are just a few) talking about how their Jewish values led them in that direction, tikkun olam and all that. Are you saying I should disbelieve all these Jewish sources, call them liars? Or is the Mabo case a bit of a nothingburger, not very important? Who's the anti-semite here

Lol, you are. If any lurkers are still reading, it seems /u/randomranger has provided an excellent example of my point. Is it a coincidence that (1) he aggressively criticizes Israel to the point of rushing to judgment; (2) he believes Jewish people are collectively responsible (to a significant extent) for policies of the Australian government with which he disagrees; and (3) as far as I can tell, he doesn't seriously deny that he hates Jewish people?

The question on the table is whether (1) the accusation of anti-Semitism is just a rhetorical ploy to blunt criticism of Israel or if (2) it has actual merit. It seems pretty clear to me that, at least in this situation, it's the second possibility.

Arab citizens of Israel enjoy some degree of affirmative action and Leftists in Israel are constantly pushing for the same sort of suicidal policies Leftists push for in every advanced nation.

How large is the left in Israel, nowadays? My understanding is since the 2010s the Overton Window has shifted such that Netanyahu is pretty close to the center, and the right is mostly religious conservatives who are inoculated against pathological xenophilia.

How large is the left in Israel, nowadays?

I don't know. But I do know that so far, they have not succeeded in getting the door open to immigration of outsiders. Which is kind of the holy grail for Leftists, for obvious reasons.

There is lots of immigration into Israël, and ‘who counts as Jewish’ is a thorny question that the left has taken W’s on in the past.

There is lots of immigration into Israël, and ‘who counts as Jewish’ is a thorny question that the left has taken W’s on in the past.

Right, and it's reasonably obvious that their goal is to open the floodgates via "quickie conversions."

??? No, the left's wins on Israeli immigration policy have tended to be recognizing as valid Jewish ethnic groups those with sketchier claims, conversions have pretty consistently been very difficult.

No, the left's wins on Israeli immigration policy have tended to be recognizing as valid Jewish ethnic groups those with sketchier claims, conversions have pretty consistently been very difficult.

I'm talking about what they would like to do -- not what they have accomplished.

The right-wing in Israel is also quite split. If you think it’s “the left” that are Israel’s biggest source of internal instability, you should see just how strongly the right there opposes the state.

you should see just how strongly the right there opposes the state.

I'm kind of skeptical about this. Can you give me 3 examples of right-wing members of the Knesset who strongly oppose the state?

I don’t know of any right-wing members of the Knesset that oppose the state, as most of the ultra orthodox that oppose the state don’t partake in the system in that way to begin with, which is kind of the point.

Yahadut Hatorah is an explicitly non-Zionist coalition of Haredi and Hasidic political parties that consistently gets 6-7 MKs. Back in the 1990s their MKs would refuse to sing the national anthem at the start of Knesset sessions. The anger at a party which was widely perceived as anti-Israel joining the government in 1996 drove the foundation of Shinui as a secular, Zionist, right-liberal party in opposition to Likud - the first pledge in Shinui's manifesto was "we will never join a coalition that includes MKs who don't sing the national anthem". The Haredi parties have improved their behaviour since then in order to become an acceptable coalition party for Netanyahu after 2009, but they still represent the tendency within Haredi communities to treat the State of Israel as a food animal.

The right-wing in Israel is also quite split. If you think it’s “the left” that are Israel’s biggest source of internal instability, you should see just how strongly the right there opposes the state.

I don’t know of any right-wing members of the Knesset that oppose the state, as most of the ultra orthodox that oppose the state don’t partake in the system in that way to begin with, which is kind of the point.

Well roughly how many of these ultra-orthodox are there who strongly oppose the state? And if they don't participate in the system, how do they contribute to internal instability on the right?

Do the ultra Orthodox trend left wing or right wing in Israeli politics? I feel like their beliefs are kind of spread out across the political axis

If you're ultra orthodox you're right-wing by definition but they get pretty rabid and extreme when it comes to their protests against the state.

I thought some were largely pacifist and driven by the allocation of gibs, though?

This is the Israeli equivalent of a rural interest party, is my understanding- they’ll coalition with anyone as long as they get their way, but that don’t make em left wing- even when that coalition is with labour. They’re also not pacifist, they just don’t want to personally fight.

Do you really believe that opposition to Israel is (always? in the case of OP specifically? most of the time?) motivated by opposition to Jews, or is it a rhetorical device because you like Israel and want to tar opposition to it? I'm particularly interested in the answer because I am situated in the category whose existence you appear to deny (no issue with Jews as an ethnicity or religion, large issue with the state of Israel in its current form - not even as a theoretical concept, as I've previously argued they should have just taken some land from the Germans and founded it on the Baltic coast back in 1945 instead).

"I'm particularly interested in the answer because I am situated in the category whose existence you appear to deny (no issue with Jews as an ethnicity or religion, large issue with the state of Israel in its current form - not even as a theoretical concept, as I've previously argued they should have just taken some land from the Germans and founded it on the Baltic coast back in 1945 instead)."

That pro-Israel classical liberals can't see this as the same nonsense that conflates the NAACP with all black people is beyond me. My theory: Jewish identity politics for some on the right is the one identity politics to rule them all. Meaning, its correctness is positively correlated with the incorrectness of all the other, admittedly more odious and societally detrimental kinds of identity politics.

"There can be no absence of identity politics, so choose the relatively best one, which also happens to nullify the other, worse ones! Yes, it means being hyperbolic and engaging in disingenuous rhetoric, but that's the price to pay, and it's worth it."

Do you really believe that opposition to Israel is (always? in the case of OP specifically? most of the time?) motivated by opposition to Jews

I'll go with "almost always."

I'm particularly interested in the answer because I am situated in the category whose existence you appear to deny

Well, here are a few questions:

When you criticize or condemn Israel for something, do you criticize or condemn other countries that behave similarly or worse?

Do you care about the treatment of the Palestinian Arabs? If so, how do you feel about the treatment of Palestinian Arabs by Arab countries such as Lebanon?

Are you aware that the UN condemns Israel far more than any other country by far? Do you think that this is because the UN is biased against Israel or do you believe that Israel genuinely is the worst country in the world in terms of activities which merit condemnation?

Are you upset about US military support of Israel? If so, how do you feel about US military support of South Korea; Japan; Norway; Turkey; or the UK?

When Israel does things such as attacking hospitals, do you understand and accept that this is because terrorist organizations such as Hamas operate out of hospitals?

In my experience, the vast majority of people who criticize or condemn Israel single the Israel out for special treatment. The vast majority of people who claim to care about Palestinian Arabs are not even aware, let alone care about, the way Palestinian Arabs are treated in places like Lebanon. The vast majority of people who criticize or condemn Israel are not able to bring themselves to admit that the UN is horrifically biased against Israel. The vast majority of people who complain about US military support of Israel are hardly aware and do not care about US military support for other countries. The vast majority of Israel's critics minimize or ignore things like Hamas' use of hospitals, which gives Israel no practical choice other than to attack hospitals. It's difficult to square these attitudes with anything other than anti-Semitism. The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that a lot of these people are simply NPC's repeating Leftist talking points -- they are a vehicle for other peoples' hatred of Jews, the equivalent of low level concentration camp guards.

When you criticize or condemn Israel for something, do you criticize or condemn other countries that behave similarly or worse?

I would, but unlike you I don't get the sense that there are currently other countries who are similar or worse. The country was founded less than 100 years ago on land violently stolen from the previous residents; more land continues to be stolen (settlers) on its periphery; the descendants of the same previous residents are stuck on its territory as an underclass with minimal sociopolitical rights and recently being slaughtered by the tens of thousands in a form of collective punishment for the violent resistance that formed among them. The most recent historical comparisons I can think of are South Africa and perhaps Korea/China under Japanese rule during/before WWII, and even in those cases I get the sense that the lot of the native population was actually better (both in terms of the sheer volume of violence they suffered relative to their total number, and in terms of how much of what was their ancestors' they were they denied the use of). Of course there is the objection that they are different in that the invaders had something like a homeland they could straightforwardly retreat to (this is more clear in the case of Japan than in the case of the white peoples of South Africa), but as someone who is not particularly convinced of a general right to an ethnostate I don't find this so compelling.

Do you care about the treatment of the Palestinian Arabs? If so, how do you feel about the treatment of Palestinian Arabs by Arab countries such as Lebanon?

I somewhat do, but to my best knowledge little of my taxes is spent on supporting whatever other Arab countries do to them, so it's easier to see it as an instance of misery that I have no moral responsibility to stop. Also, per the above angle on Israel, I'm not sure I agree that other Arab countries mistreat them as badly.

Are you aware that the UN condemns Israel far more than any other country by far? Do you think that this is because the UN is biased against Israel or do you believe that Israel genuinely is the worst country in the world in terms of activities which merit condemnation?

See above, I get the sense that it is among the worst. If pressed, I think North Korea might cause (in the counterfactual sense of causation: literally deleting the state of North Korea, including every member of leadership, official document and government building, would make things better) more total undeserved misery per capita, but for better or worse one may argue that the UN's magisterium is to regulate the relations between nations/peoples, so that North Koreans torturing their own is none of its business.

It's a harder question whether various colourful events in Africa (like the recent genocides in Sudan) were worse, and in general I would wish for more UN intervention in those; but to do so properly from my point of view requires a memetic rehabilitation of uplift colonialism, where we may accept that if some peoples keep murdering each other at some point we ought to go in, confiscate their children and put them through a few generations of forced schooling in a different cultural background. At the same time, the current memetic landscape unfortunately does not require this; and either way, in practice the UN has a lot more influence on rich first-world countries than places like Sudan, so it makes sense for it to direct its condemnation energy in a direction where it can actually affect outcomes.

Are you upset about US military support of Israel? If so, how do you feel about US military support of South Korea; Japan; Norway; Turkey; or the UK?

Neither of those is doing things as bad as what I said in my first paragraph! I should say that my citizenship is German, so my tax money is being spent on Israel to a significant extent but not so much on the others. But either way, the problem is not military support being intrinsically bad, but rather military support conveying upon the supporter some responsibility for what the military is then used for. Out of this list, if I were a US citizen, I would also prefer to defund Turkey.

When Israel does things such as attacking hospitals, do you understand and accept that this is because terrorist organizations such as Hamas operate out of hospitals?

I understand that this is a motivation, though I'm not convinced that it isn't simultaneously true that they are happy to have a pretext to flatten a hospital because it serves the longer-term goal of having fewer and less healthy Palestinians in the area.

I would, but unlike you I don't get the sense that there are currently other countries who are similar or worse. The country was founded less than 100 years ago on land violently stolen from the previous residents; more land continues to be stolen (settlers) on its periphery; the descendants of the same previous residents are stuck on its territory as an underclass with minimal sociopolitical rights and recently being slaughtered by the tens of thousands in a form of collective punishment for the violent resistance that formed among them. The most recent historical comparisons I can think of are South Africa and perhaps Korea/China under Japanese rule during/before WWII, and even in those cases I get the sense that the lot of the native population was actually better (both in terms of the sheer volume of violence they suffered relative to their total number, and in terms of how much of what was their ancestors' they were they denied the use of). Of course there is the objection that they are different in that the invaders had something like a homeland they could straightforwardly retreat to (this is more clear in the case of Japan than in the case of the white peoples of South Africa), but as someone who is not particularly convinced of a general right to an ethnostate I don't find this so compelling.

Let's see if I understand your argument correctly:

  1. In the 1940s, what is now Israel was collectively the property of the Arabs living in the area but NOT the property of the Jews living in the area.

  2. Thus, by declaring a Jewish state and winning the Israeli war of independence, Israel has a sort of original sin which taints everything it does.

  3. Therefore, if Israel blows up a hospital which is being used as a base by Hamas, it is illegitimate because Israel has no legitimate right of self defense.

  4. Thus, if some other country blows up a hospital or a school or whatever, and even if that hospital was not being used for military purposes, it's still not as bad as Israel because that other country does not have Israel's "original sin."

Do I understand your position correctly?

I somewhat do, but to my best knowledge little of my taxes is spent on supporting whatever other Arab countries do to them, so it's easier to see it as an instance of misery that I have no moral responsibility to stop.

Of course I have heard the "tax dollars" argument before. But if this were the reason for the ferocious and relentless criticism of Israel out there, one would expect Europeans to be far less anti-Israel than Americans. That's not the case at all. "Tax dollars" is an excuse, not the actual reason.

I understand that this is a motivation, though I'm not convinced that it isn't simultaneously true that they are happy to have a pretext to flatten a hospital because it serves the longer-term goal of having fewer and less healthy Palestinians in the area.

Are you similarly skeptical of the motives of other countries which are engaged in military conflicts?

No, not quite correctly.

  1. In the 1940s, the area was populated by a handful of Jews and many Arabs. They owned their respective property; Arabs were presumably in the majority, and in particular sufficiently densely distributed that there was no viable contiguous Jewish state that could be founded on Jewish property.

  2. Thereupon, Jewish colonists with Anglo-American backing started entering the area and killing and expelling the Arabs. Without these actions, the "war of independence" (which was really a unilateral war of aggression) could not have been won. This created a sort of "original sin" that is so recent that it has not met my statute of limitations.

  3. Israel continues doing the same thing (killing Arabs, expelling them from their land and settling it). Israel is a democracy (as its supporters are enthusiastic to point out). Therefore, sins analogous to the "original sin" are newly committed by the Israeli state with popular consent with regularity.

I'm not as hung up on hospitals as you seem to be, though I would like to point out that Russia is regularly condemned for attacking Ukrainian dual-use infrastructure (including hospitals) that is likewise used by the Ukrainian military and still manages to have produced a far lower number of civilian casualties in Ukraine than Israel has among its enemies. This seems like pretty strong evidence that Israel is unusually happy to cause civilian casualties.

Either way, nothing about this requires even talking about whether they are justified to blow up hospitals or anyone else is! Even ignoring the tens of thousands of skulls, 1-3 alone amounts to an obvious moral case for returning what was stolen. If Israel relinquishes all land that was not owned by Jews in 1940, we can talk about who and what they are allowed to destroy in defense of what's left.

The only relevance that the "original sin" has to evaluating Israel's other actions (including blowing up hospitals) is that Israel habitually defends its ongoing violence and theft against the Arabs with violence committed by Arabs against them. Commonly, notions of legitimate self-defense are understood to only cover unprovoked actions. You can't attack and rob someone, have them strike you in self-defense, and then justify further aggression against them as self-defense against the preceding act.

Of course I have heard the "tax dollars" argument before. But if this were the reason for the ferocious and relentless criticism of Israel out there, one would expect Europeans to be far less anti-Israel than Americans. That's not the case at all. "Tax dollars" is an excuse, not the actual reason.

This argument is nonsensical. There is no reason to assume that the total volume of possible outrage at atrocities committed elsewhere is the same in every country. If the amount of "tax dollars" has any relevance at all, at most you might argue that it determines the relative scale of our responsibility for Israel's actions, compared to other atrocities being committed with our monetary support - and there, I think there might be a good case that even though US support for Israel is in absolute terms much larger than ours, in relative terms there is comparatively more other immoral behaviour that American money pays for. It could be that 30% of all atrocities funded by EU military budget are Israeli and 10% of all atrocities funded by US military budget are, but the latter quantity is still much larger in monetary terms.

In the 1940s, the area was populated by a handful of Jews and many Arabs. They owned their respective property

I'm pretty sure that a lot of the land in the area, likely the majority, was not privately owned. Rather, it was previously Ottoman land, succeeded to by the British, at least as far as control goes. You could call it "public land." Are you saying that this public land land was the property of the Arabs as a group; the Jews as a group; both; neither; or something else?

Thereupon, Jewish colonists with Anglo-American backing started entering the area and killing and expelling the Arabs. Without these actions, the "war of independence" (which was really a unilateral war of aggression) could not have been won. This created a sort of "original sin" that is so recent that it has not met my statute of limitations.

Ok, so any group which, in the last 100 years, has acquired territory by means of ethnic cleansing, backed by violence, is tainted with "original sin." Do I understand you correctly?

Israel continues doing the same thing (killing Arabs, expelling them from their land and settling it)

Can you tell me the most recent significant incident in this process so that I know what you are talking about?

I'm not as hung up on hospitals as you seem to be, though I would like to point out that Russia is regularly condemned for attacking Ukrainian dual-use infrastructure (including hospitals) that is likewise used by the Ukrainian military and still manages to have produced a far lower number of civilian casualties in Ukraine than Israel has among its enemies. This seems like pretty strong evidence that Israel is unusually happy to cause civilian casualties.

Do you agree that Hamas regularly and aggressively uses human shields?

Arabs with violence committed by Arabs against them. Commonly, notions of legitimate self-defense are understood to only cover unprovoked actions.

Ok, so in your view, Israel has no legitimate right of self-defense when it comes to any and all Arab terrorism against it. Do I understand you correctly?

There is no reason to assume that the total volume of possible outrage at atrocities committed elsewhere is the same in every country.

I assume that by "atrocities," you are referring to the Israeli self-defense which you believe is per se illegitimate. What would you say are the primary reasons for variation, from country to country in opposition to Israel? And can we agree that at least on the surface, support of Israel with tax monies does not appear to be a significant factor? Also, I am a little confused by your post. Are you saying that there are European or other countries besides the US who are providing military support for Israel?

Last, I would appreciate an answer to my question from before: Are you similarly skeptical of the motives of other countries which are engaged in military conflicts?

I'm pretty sure that a lot of the land in the area, likely the majority, was not privately owned. Rather, it was previously Ottoman land, succeeded to by the British, at least as far as control goes. You could call it "public land." Are you saying that this public land land was the property of the Arabs as a group; the Jews as a group; both; neither; or something else?

I honestly don't know the details of how land titles in a British colony are divided up, but the details don't seem relevant. Per the table here we are talking about something like 75%+ Muslims. At the very least I would assume that their immediate residence, plus perhaps some tract of land around it, was owned by them. If the legal situation is such that you have small (by area) cities that are owned by individuals, and large tracts of non-residential land around them that are owned by the government/"public land" but essentially used by and for the small residential areas, then I'm quite happy to say that the "public land" is morally the collective property of those who own the small residential plots, in proportion to what percentage of the population they were. Manifestly, the colonists did expel the Arabs from their residences! Even if the situation was such that on paper 5% of the land was Arab and 95% was "public", it's rather disingenuous to treat the 5% "Arab land" that was stolen as a rounding error when clearly the colonists did not seem to think the Arabs could be allowed to keep it as a "rounding error" (because it turns out that the 5% private land was key to exploiting the 95% of public land).

Ok, so any group which, in the last 100 years, has acquired territory by means of ethnic cleansing, backed by violence, is tainted with "original sin." Do I understand you correctly?

Don't ignore context to generate overly ambitious strawman statements to refute. I'm happy with the following narrower version: any group which, in the last 100 years, has acquired territory by means of (...), where this ethnic cleansing and violence was not itself justified as retaliation against a previous act, is tainted with "original sin".

Can you tell me the most recent significant incident in this process so that I know what you are talking about?

Here's one from the top of a Google search for . The Golan Heights is getting settlement and that is literally territory they seized from another sovereign and internationally recognised at the time state in war.

Do you agree that Hamas regularly and aggressively uses human shields?

I don't know what exactly you mean by this, but I'm happy to accept a statement like "Hamas deliberately bases its operations in civilian areas for the purpose of concealment". Perhaps "aggressively uses human shields" is a Russell conjugation of this sort of thing, where in an allied country it's more of an innovative mom-and-pop shop startup story.

Ok, so in your view, Israel has no legitimate right of self-defense when it comes to any and all Arab terrorism against it. Do I understand you correctly?

Eh, not quite. My point is mostly that we (the country I'm a subject of, and also the country you are a subject of) have a moral obligation to not aid them in their defense. In terms of "legitimacy" (what do you mean by this?), I do lean towards saying something like every living being has some sort of natural right to fight for its own survival - I would not morally fault the murderer who is sought out by his victim's surviving relatives in retaliation for fighting them off, even as I may cheer on the relatives to prevail.

I assume that by "atrocities," you are referring to the Israeli self-defense which you believe is per se illegitimate.

I mean in particular self-defense that leaves cities looking like this, and for example everything that is mentioned in this article. I don't believe the argument that this is the only way they could defend themselves has been made, and in particular the Russia/Ukraine thing continues being a canonical test case - we are simultaneously hearing the assertion that Russia has worse training, less and inferior precision weaponry, is more brutal than Israel, and having no problem roundly condemning it and sanctioning it to hell, but somehow Russia manages to occupy Ukrainian cities without having to mow down people in bread lines and even the most thoroughly burned-over cities on the frontline there don't quite look that reduced to rubble.

Last, I would appreciate an answer to my question from before: Are you similarly skeptical of the motives of other countries which are engaged in military conflicts?

I think I've made an extensive case that nobody else seems to be currently engaged in military conflicts that are this one-sidedly immoral.

If you want to take this conversation further, please try to actually engage with the points I make, rather than doing this mixture of warping a few excerpts into strawmen and requesting that I undersign a battery of prepared statements. I don't think you are actually doing your case a service, because you are doing it so sloppily that you are just inviting more opportunities to make the Israeli case look bad.

I honestly don't know the details of how land titles in a British colony are divided up, but the details don't seem relevant

According to the AI (and this seems like the sort of thing AI is likely to be correct about), 70-75% of the land was "state land."

I'm quite happy to say that the "public land" is morally the collective property of those who own the small residential plots, in proportion to what percentage of the population they were

Ok, so by your reasoning, roughly 25% of the land area of British Mandatory Palestine was "Jewish Land." Agreed?

any group which, in the last 100 years, has acquired territory by means of (...), where this ethnic cleansing and violence was not itself justified as retaliation against a previous act, is tainted with "original sin".

Ok, and what was the justified retaliation for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Hebron; Gaza City; and the Eastern part of Jerusalem? What could and should be done about these Arab thefts of Jewish land?

Here's one from the top of a Google search for https://www.timesofisrael.com/government-formally-approves-34-new-settlements-as-it-acts-to-deepen-hold-on-west-bank/

Ok, so if I understand your position correctly, notwithstanding the Oslo accords, essentially all of Area C is property of the Arabs according to you, correct? Also, I am skeptical that Arabs were killed and expelled to make way for the 6 settlements referred to in the article. Can you provide links and cites?

Last, what is the justified retaliation for Jordan's attack on Israel in 1967?

I'm happy to accept a statement like "Hamas deliberately bases its operations in civilian areas for the purpose of concealment".

Ok, so you dispute any claim that Hamas deliberately operates in and around civilians in order to discourage Israel from attacking and to generate bad press for Israel if Israel does attack. Right?

My point is mostly that we (the country I'm a subject of, and also the country you are a subject of) have a moral obligation to not aid them in their defense. In terms of "legitimacy" (what do you mean by this?),

Well what I mean is as follows: Suppose Israel engages some aggressive act, such as blowing up building which allegedly had a Hamas leader inside it. And suppose someone condemns Israel for doing so without condemning other countries who blow up buildings. To me, that raises the question of double-standards, which is evidence that the person is motivated by anti-Semitism. It seems like you are saying that the situations are different, because -- according to you -- Israel provoked the terrorist who was in the destroyed building. Therefore, according to you, it's not unprincipled to condemn Israel for destroying such a building while NOT condemning other countries who engage in similar activities. Is that your position or not? Because it seems like you are backing away from that position.

I don't believe the argument that this is the only way they could defend themselves has been made

I disagree, but that's beside the point. My question was this:

What would you say are the primary reasons for variation, from country to country in opposition to Israel? And can we agree that at least on the surface, support of Israel with tax monies does not appear to be a significant factor? Also, I am a little confused by your post. Are you saying that there are European or other countries besides the US who are providing military support for Israel?

Are you declining to answer?

++++++++++++++++

I think I've made an extensive case that nobody else seems to be currently engaged in military conflicts that are this one-sidedly immoral.

So it seems like your position is (1) the conflicts Israel has engaged in over the years are uniquely and one-sidely immoral on the part of Israel; and (2) therefore, you are uniquely skeptical of Israel's motives. Right?

Also, can please tell me two specific things Israel has done in recent wars which are uniquely immoral? Because I'm very skeptical of your claim.

I don't think you are actually doing your case a service, because you are doing it so sloppily that you are just inviting more opportunities to make the Israeli case look bad

Thank you for your CONCERN. It's so nice to know that you are so CONCERNED about my presenting my argument.

More comments

When you criticize or condemn Israel for something, do you criticize or condemn other countries that behave similarly or worse?

Do you care about the treatment of the Palestinian Arabs? If so, how do you feel about the treatment of Palestinian Arabs by Arab countries such as Lebanon?

These kinds of whataboutisms chalk up to antisemitism what is really about a lack of cognitive omnipotence. (Or the fact that Americans aren't allegedly joined morally at the hip with the Arab World, but they are with Israel, making criticisms more tempting.)

These kinds of whataboutisms chalk up to antisemitism what is really about a lack of cognitive omnipotence.

Well what happens when your typical Israel critic is informed about these things? Does it change the person's mind? Generally no.

allegedly joined morally at the hip

Can you explain what this means?

Yes, just assume that the critics already know these other things and that focusing on Israeli, er, malfeasance has sinister motives. That their not talking about violence and horribleness that afflicts Sub-Saharan Africans etc. must be due to a suspiciously strange obsession with Israel, which is just a random country like Bulgaria or Turkmenistan that is being unfairly singled out.

"Can you explain what this means?"

That they are a longstanding and obvious ally, an outpost of our Western way of life in the Middle East that is fundamentally on a higher moral plane (likewise, that even if you agree, you don't think Israel's problems should be our problems; nope, not good enough, it just MUST be Jew hatred.)

Yes, just assume that the critics already know these other things

There's no need to make that assumption. You just need to see whether they change their mind when presented with the facts. And the results are not flattering to such people.

That they are a longstanding and obvious ally, an outpost of our Western way of life in the Middle East that is fundamentally on a higher moral plane

Agreed. And if critics of Israel would regularly acknowledge this, I would be much less likely to conclude that they have "sinister motives" as you put it.

"Agreed. And if critics of Israel would regularly acknowledge this, I would be much less likely to conclude that they have "sinister motives" as you put it."

But when people call out Israel for not sharing our values (in being an ethno-religious state), that's also called Antisemitic. As it stands, I feel like I'm being asked to pick a side in the Shia vs. Sunni dispute. I say the line is being drawn arbitrarily. The whole intra-Middle East dispute spectrum, which includes the Israeli pov, is ALL awful.

But when people call out Israel for not sharing our values (in being an ethno-religious state), that's also called Antisemitic.

I don't think there's anything antisemitic about pointing out that Israel is an ethnostate. However, when people reserve this criticism for Israel while ignoring the various other countries to which it applies (Liberia, Japan, Korea), it's hard to avoid the conclusion that antisemitism is the underlying motivation.

Even if Israel doesn't share all of its values with the US, I think you would have a hard time contesting the assertion that it has more values in common with the US than any other country in the Middle East, and that it's not even a close race.

But when people call out Israel for not sharing our values (in being an ethno-religious state), that's also called Antisemitic

Can you give me a couple examples of this so I know what you are talking about?

It's difficult to square these attitudes with anything other than anti-Semitism. The most charitable interpretation I can think of is that a lot of these people are simply NPC's repeating Leftist talking points -- they are a vehicle for other peoples' hatred of Jews, the equivalent of low level concentration camp guards.

That doesn't have to be specifically anti-semitism; I think most of it is just garden variety anti-westernism. In general, the same leftists who condemn Israel for its military actions are the ones who condemn the US Military for similar actions. This attitude often extends to other domains, such as criminal justice.

That doesn't have to be specifically anti-semitism; I think most of it is just garden variety anti-westernism. In general, the same leftists who condemn Israel for its military actions are the ones who condemn the US Military for similar actions.

I agree that's probably a factor, but (1) given that Jews are one of world's most advanced peoples, in practice that sort of attitude is functionally indistinguishable from anti-Semitism; and (2) it doesn't look like it's the only factor, or even necessarily the main factor. Even before the current war, there were plenty of people in the US who were upset over US military aid to Israel. Those same people were apparently unaware that the US has full on military installations in South Korea and Germany. That the US is pledged to treat an attack on Norway as an attack on the United States.

Those same people were apparently unaware that the US has full on military installations in South Korea and Germany. That the US is pledged to treat an attack on Norway as an attack on the United States.

What treaties do we have with Israel that are in any way comparable to NATO? We pledge to defend Norway in case of an attack because they pledge the same thing back to us. Is it a lopsided relationship? Absolutely. But we don't even get those same guarantees back from Israel, lopsided as they would be. I'm not inherently opposed to entering a mutual defense treaty ala NATO with Israel, but there would have to be more to it than we just subsidize their military, forever.

The US security guarantee under NATO never extended to US support for punitive operations against countries which harboured terrorists. When Israel area-bombs civilian targets in southern Lebanon in order to root out Hezbollah, the US sends cash and ammo. If the UK had area-bombed civilian targets in County Monaghan and County Louth in order to root out the IRA, the US would have sent a Suez-style spanking.

We pledge to defend Norway in case of an attack because they pledge the same thing back to us.

So if Israel makes a pledge to defend the United States if it's ever attacked (and they honor that pledge to the same extent Norway has) do you think people who complain about US military aid to Israel will be mollified? Serious question.

Also, do you think those people care about US military aid to Egypt? My guess is that for the most part they don't even know about it.

So if Israel makes a pledge to defend the United States if it's ever attacked (and they honor that pledge to the same extent Norway has) do you think people who complain about US military aid to Israel will be mollified? Serious question.

Some of them (such as myself) would be (if we were also getting bases, unrestricted access to Israeli defense tech, etc. out of it). But I agree with you that there would be plenty who would not be because they hate Israel for other reasons. But I don't think it's necessarily because of anti-Semitism in all cases, some of the opposition to Israel seems to be because of deranged strains of Third-Worldism as well (and sometimes the two overlap as well).

Also, do you think those people care about US military aid to Egypt? My guess is that for the most part they don't even know about it.

I do, but I agree that the median American is retarded and ignorant about it. I will point out that the quantity of aid given to Israel is greater than that given to most other countries, so someone could be opposed to it on those grounds (though I admit they usually are not).

I'm personally opposed to almost all foreign aid, unless there is a clear benefit to the American people and taxpayers from that aid.

But I don't think it's necessarily because of anti-Semitism in all cases, some of the opposition to Israel seems to be because of deranged strains of Third-Worldism as well

By "third-worldism," I assume you mean the tendency of a lot of people (typically on the Left) to pretty much automatically side with third-world people in any conflict they may have with first-world people. As I mentioned in another comment, given that Jews are one of world's most advanced peoples, in practice that sort of attitude is functionally indistinguishable from anti-Semitism.

I will point out that the quantity of aid given to Israel is greater than that given to most other countries,

The amount of military aid given to Israel is 2 to 3 times that given to Egypt. But consistently there's a lot more than 2 to 3 times the level of outrage. Besides, I'm pretty confident that if the money the US spent on overseas operations were treated as military aid, the level provided to South Korea would be comparable to that given to Israel or perhaps significantly higher. Not to mention the direct risk to our soldiers' lives that comes from having soldiers stationed right near the DMZ.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats