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 -
Although I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your reasoning. There is a saying which goes along the lines of "If the Arabs lay down their weapons, there will be peace; if Israel lays down its weapons, there will be no more Israel." Is that saying true? The experience with Jordan and Egypt suggests that the answer is "yes." Israel has not attacked Jordan or Egypt even though it has more than enough military strength to do so. Almost certainly Gaza could have gone in a similar direction after the Israeli pullout 20 years ago, but Gaza's leadership instead chose a different direction.
That being said, I agree that a peaceful solution to the current conflict is very unlikely. The key point is that the main goal of the Palestinian Arabs is to destroy Jewish Israel. As long as they have some hope of achieving that goal, the conflict will continue, unless of course they succeed. Thus, there are basically two ways for the conflict to end: First, Israel gets destroyed (obviously violent). Second, the Palestinian Arabs are completely subdued, their hopes and dreams of destroying Israel getting crushed in the process. It's difficult to see how this could be accomplished without violence.
This distinction matters. Putting pressure on Israel feeds the hopes and dreams of the Palestinian Arabs, leading to more intense conflict.
I disagree with this analysis for a couple reasons. First, the US gave Israel very little support before the 1970s and Israel did okay. In fact it was the USSR that was a big weapon supplier to Israel in the 1940s. Second, there has still been a tremendous amount of support for Israel in the United States notwithstanding the end of the cold war. Third, even without Western support, Israel could defend itself pretty well against Arab attacks just like it did in 1967.
In absolute terms, I would probably disagree with this. Secular Israelis (the type who drive on Saturdays; who eat shrimp; etc. but who go to the local synagogue for funerals, weddings, bar mitzvahs, etc.) are holding their own pretty well compared to other secular groups in the world. But in relative terms? Yes, the religious populations in Israel are outpacing the seculars by a wide margin.
I agree that they are a problem population, but I don't think I would blame it on their conditions. Not those of the last 100 years, anyway.
That was tried back in 1967 and it didn't work out for the Arabs. And it was more because the Israelis were more determined and better organized than anything else. At this point, the Israeli military is far stronger than it was in 1967, so I think it's unlikely that such an invasion would be attempted, let alone having a reasonable chance of success.
More options
Context Copy link