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 -
Zohran Mamdani is threatening to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the UN in September
18 USC 878 makes it a federal crime to threaten to imprison any foreign head of state, which suggests that the DOJ has grounds to take action against Mamdani here. This would, of course, cause absolutely nuclear levels of insanity to erupt, especially since I have very little faith in the media not to frame it as "Fascist Trump arrests political rival". But also, it's also extremely unlikely that there will be an actual attempt to arrest Netanyahu, since that would require the NYPD to tangle with the United States Secret Service. All of this seems obvious to me, which means it must be obvious to Mamdani, which raises the question, what is his play here? Even the suggestion that the city that hosts the UN would seriously consider arresting guests of the UN should be insanely problematic.
The hysteria over this flies both ways.
The DOJ has no grounds to take any action against Mamdani as he has only said that he was in active conversation with the legal team over whether or not he could arrest Netanyahu. That can't be illegal, can it? Following that the law apparently says he can't arrest Netanyahu so this is just PR for the lefty base.
That being said, Israel is an apartheid state engaged in terrorism against civilians in large areas that it wants to ethnically cleanse and settle with the genetically correct people. The UN is by their own standards denigrating itself via inaction against such a regime. As is the rest of the world who holds on to the pretense that this is bad under any other circumstance.
To that extent the UN can not act as if their own inadequacies and failures are excusable when they fly in the face of the moral decency felt by free and democratic societies that are fast seeing their electorate turning into single issue voters due to the corruption and crimes committed by zionists and Israel.
Maybe the people of NYC don't want to host the UN if this is what the organization stands for.
Israel is not apartheid state. There doesn't seems to be segregation inside Israel. People in the west bank and gaza are not israeli citizens so how can Israel apply apartheid to them?
For the ethical cleansing - Israel seems to be pretty bad at it. We have more Palestinians than ever.
The South Africans also claimed "Zulus in the Bantustans aren't South Africans so how can we apply apartheid to them" and yet that little trick didn't fool anyone. The essential element is that the West Bank and Gaza are under effectively under Israeli sovereignty yet their people have no citizenship, the textbook example of apartheid.
Yes, they are bad at it. The essential difference between them and the Germans is competence: the Israelis are more cowardly, less capable and less self reliant. First as a tragedy, now as a farce and all that. There have been plenty of incompetent genocidaires throughout history; the Rwandan genocide ended with the genocidaires actually losing the war to their would-be victims, for example.
Also we have no idea how many Palestinians there are since they refuse to allow any kind of unbiased outside monitors in to actually figure out how many Palestinians there are. Famously the 1948 World Almanac claimed that the Jewish population had actually increased during the war but that was because the Almanac was using old data.
So, your argument is that they totally definitely for sure WANT to kill all the Palestinians. (I suppose that before Oct. 7 2023 they just had other things on their mind, like controlling global finance.) With that as a given, the fact that they HAVEN'T is only explained by being so darn incompetent. The Israeli tanks and missiles are being stopped from razing every city to the ground by ___ (please fill in the blank here, presumably with something other than "being a civilized Western nation").
The Israeli government was seriously discussing shutting off all the water to Gaza. The only reason they didn’t do that was because if the massive international outcry.
I suppose I'll have to take your word for it that they were totally definitely for sure seriously discussing stopping giving a utility to the Palestinians, and then didn't stop giving the utility to the Palestinians. Those jerks. You did lead me to a fun Wikipedia page talking about water in the Palestinian territories. After the mandatory Israel-blaming, there's this buried gem:
So, the Palestinians have spent 18 years not handling basic services because of their dysfunctional government. But if the Israelis stop covering the slack, it's "genocide" I guess.
If I lock a hooker in my basement and then stop giving her water bottles, that’s murder. I can’t argue that the stupid bitch should have been responsible for her own utilities payments.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They are not under Israeli sovereignty. Israel doesn't claim to own them or rule them. Both are orphaned ex Egypt and Jordanian territories. And if tomorrow Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or the Alpha centauries offer to conquer the west bank and gaza, Israel will welcome them and unroll the red carpet.
I think we can guestimate by how many hospitals Gaza ministry of health has claimed to have been destroyed.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's worth pointing out that under your definition, Lebanon is an apartheid state; Syria is an apartheid state; Egypt is an apartheid state; heck, even Norway is an apartheid state.
I'm not VIM but what exactly do you mean by that? Because Norway etc has non-citizens in its territory?
Palestinian Arabs living in Lebanon (even for generations) don't get citizenship. They are considered "refugees," they are not allowed to vote, own land, or work in various professions.
The situation is similar in Syria and Egypt.
Norway exercises sovereignty over the Russian town of Barentsburg. As far as I know, Russians living there don't get Norwegian citizenship even if they are born there.
I'm sure we can all appreciate the real world difference between the Russian owned coal mining outpost of Barentsburg, hosting a population of ~300 that operates on Norwegian land, and Palestine.
Or appreciate that refugees from the Israeli Palestine conflict are not the same as Palestinians living on their own land.
Pretending that no one understands what apartheid means is just annoying wordplay. Israel occupies land and legally distinguishes between the populations within using various criteria and discriminates accordingly to maintain control for the designated ethnicity, just like SA did. They employ de facto separate voting rolls, just like SA. They even deploy the same alleged tokenism SA did. It's as close as you can get to the original to the point of parody. But regardless of that, the practical effect is the same.
The Israelis as they exist today never intend to relinquish any relevant representative control over the explicitly racially defined jewish state of Israel to anyone other than jews. They define themselves ethnically. They define their state ethnically. It is not possible for Israel to exist without jews. It's not possible for the state to be jewish without jewish sovereignty.
But when you live on the same land as a population group that is not jewish then you either make your bed as an apartheid state to maintain your ethnosupremacy over the land or you let everyone vote. There's no argument for why West Bank jews can vote in Israeli elections but West Bank Palestinians can not that is not de facto apartheid driven.
And I assume you're similarly outraged by the existence of Japan, South Korea, Liberia etc., all of which are ethnostates in fact if not expressly in law? Or for that matter, essentially any Arab nation, most of which purged themselves of their Jewish, Christian, Druze etc. minorities at some point in the last eight decades or so.
More options
Context Copy link
France and Hungary, and most other European countries, let their citizens living outside the country vote. I used to have a friend who was born in the United States to a French mother and (at the time I knew him) had never lived in France his whole life - but he was still regularly voting in French elections.
Would you say that French voting law is based on apartheid, because they let him vote but not me?
Now, of course, there is a difference: France does not have military bases on American soil and does not have any oversight over the American government. But France didn't let Germans vote in 1946, either, even as they were maintaining a literal military occupation over part of Germany. Of course, that was more obviously justified than the Israeli powers over the Palestinian government - but even if you argue the Israeli example isn't justified, it remains at least "an argument... that is not de facto apartheid driven."
More options
Context Copy link
OMW was making a (pretty interesting) objection to a definition. If someone offers up a definition that can't stand up to annoying wordplay, it should probably be modified. (There's no shame in tweaking a definition; changing your argument in response to correct objections can only strengthen it, unless it is fundamentally weak).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but this is that thing you do when you strip things of all context and then leap in saying, 'har har! Under your definition, Britain is an apartheid state!'. Resulting in an incredibly long definition which to be perfectly honest I believe you would either nitpick to death or say, 'well, clearly this definition was created to allow Israel to be an apartheid state without Norway or Britain'.
In practice words have fuzzy definitions and 'partitioning your state to exclude a specific citizenry that you hate and fear but nevertheless can't actually kill' is pretty close to apartheid.
Which is question-begging. Asking that question doesn't resolve the antecedent question of what is part of the State.
Not begging anything. To my eyes Israel exerts de-facto authority over Gaza. Because it feels it has to, because it doesn't trust the Gazans (understandably) enough to let them alone, but it also doesn't trust them enough to let them be part of the state. This is the circumstance I think of as apartheid.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the context-stripping door was opened by those who want to use a specific, principled-sounding words such as "apartheid" or "terrorism" to tar Israel.
Once you accuse Israel of these things, it's completely reasonable to ask for definitions of those words. And to see if the word is applied universally or if there is a special definition for Israel.
I'm the last person to deny that nasty words have their definitions stretched for political goals, and I don't even like the Palestinians, but Israel really does look like a pretty damn clear example of an apartheid state to me.
If you want to make that claim, fine, but it's reasonable to ask how you are defining "apartheid." Because if you have a special, broader, definition which applies only to Israel, it undermines your point. To use your words, it suggests that you are stretching the definition of a nasty word for political goals.
ETA: As an alternative, you could simply argue that it's improper for Israel to rule over the Palestinian Arabs living in Judea & Samaria without giving them a voice in Israeli government. In response, I could point out that doing so is the best among various bad alternatives; and so on. But as soon as you start throwing the word "apartheid" around, you've opened a door. To use your words, you've stripped context.
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