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 -
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
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.
I'm talking about what they would like to do -- not what they have accomplished.
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
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'm kind of skeptical about this. Can you give me 3 examples of right-wing members of the Knesset who strongly oppose the state?
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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
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."
More options
Context Copy link
I'll go with "almost always."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's see if I understand your argument correctly:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Are you similarly skeptical of the motives of other countries which are engaged in military conflicts?
No, not quite correctly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.)
Well what happens when your typical Israel critic is informed about these things? Does it change the person's mind? Generally no.
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.)
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.
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.
Can you give me a couple examples of this so I know what you are talking about?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link