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 -
So I was doing some reading on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I was vaguely pro-Israel before with disclaimers on how both sides are bad (like most others here I presume), but I just felt more and more pro-Israel the deeper I read (I'm not trying to astroturf, this is my true feelings on the matter). The Israeli demands during the 2000 Camp David Summit seem reasonable. The Palestinian leadership seem weirdly comfortable with ridiculous conspiracy theories about Israel trying to undermine the Al-Aqsa Mosque etc. The ban on non-Muslims from the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the ban on non-Muslim prayer on the Temple Mount, are both reprehensible. Every nook I look into, it seems like I support the Israeli side and the "both sides are bad" cases that I expected to find is largely missing.
Has anyone else had the experience of their position markedly shifting as the read up on the issue? Are the Israelis just better than PR, cunningly doing bad things to the Palestinian side under the radar, while counting on that the Palestinian reaction will be performed with much worse optics? What's the best moderate Palestinian take on an acceptable solution for a workable two-state solution?
Also, what are your predictions for the evolution of the conflict. Say that the year is 2043 and condition on no end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it: what does the conflict look like then? It seems unlikely to cool anytime soon, and the long run seems like a race between Palestinian demographics and Israeli economy, where I think Israel has the upper hand, especially if they are liberal with technological mass surveillance.
The deeper you read what?
I went from cheering "The Case for Israel" by Alan Dershowitz to not caring to take a side after reading 4-5 other books, e.g., Coming to Palestine by Sheldon Richman. The more I learned about the conflict, the less pro-Israel I became. Everything I had read about the conflict thus far turned out to be essentially a surface level PR gag to put Israelis in the best light possibly by essentially leaving out the context and specifics of conflict as well as caricaturing Palestinians and their leaders. The 2000 Camp David Summit being a great example:
Demands sounds about right. The Israel's offer was Palestine gives up its internationally recognized title to broad swathes of land and agrees to severely restrict the number of people who could claim a right of return (which in hindsight given Israeli "courts" adjudication of such matters is properly characterized as "no"). Israel's offer wasn't even the bare minimum of internationally recognized laws and rights. In this context, their offer was Palestine gives up most of what its owed under international law and Israel gives up a bit of what wants with the promise that it totally, for sure, and definitely won't just do it anyway once things cool down a bit. As Norman Finkelstein put it, "Subordinating Palestinian Rights to Israeli 'Needs.'"
The Palestinians wanted compensation when it compromised on its rights. Israel wanted compromising on the full extent of its wants to be "compromise."
And that cycle has been pretty much repeating itself for 70+ years. Israel kicks Palestinians into a corner by stealing, Palestinians bite back, Israel steals more land "for security." Palestine compromises, Israel does something for a while in response, like making a huge PR debacle around removing a single tiny illegal settlement, while expanding settlements elsewhere. Israel opens new settlements, their settlers attack Palestinians and take their houses, Palestinians fight back, Israel suppresses them and steals more land "for security."
To be frank, I don't care to take a side and would prefer to stay out of it entirely, but the sheer amount of lying and gaslighting about the conflict by Israelis, the US gov, and politicians aimed at the US population is absurd.
there is no two-state solution; a two state solution is Israel dominates and occupies the other "state" which has no sovereignty
the best solution is let Israel formalize their occupation and give Palestinians citizenship
Israel repeats the cycle I described above slowly strangling and dispossessing Palestinians until they get another excuse to jump forward to full takeover and expulsion "for security" from the sea to the Jordan river.
The international law here is in fact trickier than appears at first blush. There are legal arguments on both sides. Add in that international law itself is somewhat underdetermined I think it’s probably wise to adjudicate the conflict aside from int law.
law gets messy and there are legal arguments on both sides of most issues, even ones which have broad consensus like many of the issues which were being discussed at the Camp David Summit, including ones with holdings from the international court of justice
you can simply assert they don't matter, and that's fine, but that's a different argument
No. I’m saying that international law is different compared to most law. There is no final arbiter. Hell, the ICJ isn’t even respect by major countries including the US. Moreover, international law is so custom based and a lot of these customs are still relatively young and not litigated.
This is to say that when dealing with a very underdeveloped customary law legal arguments appear weak to me.
you can say these things are little more than letters to santa without enforcement (motte), which is true for any "law," but the law's application to many of these topics isn't tricky or complicated (bailey), especially those ones which went before the ICJ, and many of the customs in the law were incorporated from international agreements and principles far older
That would be the same ICJ that has no jurisdiction over Americans, as the US is not a party to the Rome Statute.
so what?
the rome statute has to do with the criminal court
Yeah, I accidentally crossed up the ICJ and the ICC, though as it happens, the US has some issues with both. One of the difficulties with the ICJ is that it can't really bind permanent members of the UNSC, since they can just veto enforcement of its rulings.
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