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 -
Operation Poseidon Archer
Reported by CNN:
I have mixed feelings about this. It is clearly the responsibility of the imperial hegemon to protect global shipping lanes. But by that same logic, it's time for the imperial hegemon to force a settlement onto the Israelis due to their never-ending destabilization of the region. That would entail the EU forcing a peace onto Israel, performing a Special Military Operation within Israel if necessary.
Bring back the 117 AD borders, with EU administration of Jerusalem. Jews may live in Jerusalem, wail at their wall and study Torah in peace, but it is utterly nonsensical for the West to continue to bear the burden of Israeli destabilization of the region.
This washy middle ground of appealing to imperial obligations when it comes to Middle Eastern intervention, without control of the "vassal" state destabilizing the region, is a never-ending pattern that has to stop. The US and EU has more than enough leverage to force a settlement onto Israel.
Israel is a nuclear armed state. You want a special military operation against a nuclear armed state to enforce what is likely an existential crisis for the nuclear armed nation? Israel differs from Iran and Pakistan in that its a dense nation. Its population centers are close to everywhere. You cant do limited attacks on it without attacking an Israeli population center. Thats a redline for the Israelis. They might genuinely choose to detonate a thermonuclear bomb over Europe in response. And Europe would deserve it.
Im going to answer some concerns and questions pre-emptively. The Israeli are mostly self sufficient when it comes to weapons. They do rely on outside parties for munitions, aircraft(as in piloted aircraft), and precision guided bombs. That ignores the Israeli ability to build bomb and munition making factories. They also have access to F35s and could reverse engineer them. In the 80s, the Israelis engineered an F15 competitor called the Lavi. An F15 was the major US air fighter jet btw, before it was replaced by the F35. Without US help, the Lavi aircraft showed the Israelis have the manpower and technical expertise to make advanced war weapons on their own. It was mainly a cost issue that they decided against, and it was only by a margin of one vote that it was decided against. After the fall of the Soviet Union, over a million Soviet Jews immigrated to Israel. This was a highly educated population with lots of technical expertise. Even before that happened, they had enough of it to survive.
Many people really dont look at the 50s-80s of Israeli history. They were precarious times, but the state of Israel survived under much worse circumstances. They have only grown richer and more established.
Lets say you cut off all military weaponry to Israel, including US aid. They already spend 5% of gdp on military. You likely only raise it to 7%, with no US aid. The Israelis have the technical expertise to manufacture the basics of war.
Lets say you start a trade embargo.
How far do you take it? Are you going to starve the Israelis to death? That would kill more Palestinians than israelis...because ding ding ding, Palestinians are controlled by Israel.
Okay, lets say not that. You only hit the Israeli pocketbook. You might convince them. Emphasis on might.
All this goes out the door the instance a Palestinian state starts shooting rockets at Israel. Which I find likely. Lets say a Palestinian state shoots rockets, what happens? A Palestinian state is positioned near Israeli population centers. Most Gaza rockets only affected the Israeli South. Not Tel Aviv or the Center. That wouldnt be the case with a Palestinian state, because of how the West Bank is positioned. If a Palestinian state fails to establish peace, I find it likely the Israelis expel the Palestinians. The Israelis will get sick of rockets over their heads, eventually.
Israel expelling the Palestinians leads to a regional war. A war the middle east would not win. All Israel has to do is survive. Israel has the superior military in the Levant. It has nukes. The conventional militaries of the Arab states are made for keeping the populations in line, although I suspect they will do better than even the Israelis predict. Israel would win, because at the very worst, they would use tactical nukes on advancing Arab militaries. The Arab militaries that also do show prowess, are mainly guerilla fighters in populated territories. Not conventional forces. If their population centers were threatned, they would use nukes on Arab population centers like Cairo, Amman, Beirut, Damascus. They might even target Riyadh in Saudi Arab in the Gulf if they feel malicious.
So Israel wins. It is now a heavily sanctioned pariah state like North Korea. Except unlike North Korea, they have decades of built up infrastructure and technical expertise. The Israeli population will also be much more motivated, because its their survival at stake. Not some stupid regime.
Israel likely wins a middle east war. What you have next, is waves of millions of refugees on Europes borders. Not just Palestinians. Lebanese, Jordanians, Syrians. I could see Israel taking the East side of the Jordan and expelling any all Jordanians to give a buffer. Jordan likely collapses because of internal instability caused by too many Palestinian refugees.
All youve done is destroy the Middle East, and send hordes of refugees to Europe. You probably havent even destroyed Israel, just punched it. This also ignores the one unknown. Russia. If push came to shove, and Israel was already isolated, I could see the Russians supporting Israel in trade. A state that could become a Russian proxy to threaten Europe? Russia would love that.
Frankly the worlds obsession with the Israeli Palestinian conflict is absurd and more trouble than its worth. Fine boycott arms if you want to feel morally superior, but all you do is make the situation worse just to sniff farts up your own ass.
Why Europe even needs an opinion to care about this conflict, that they need to impose a solution, is whats ridiculous? The Arab states barely care about the Palestinians as they have shown. Not enough to militarily intervene. Not enough to stop trading oil. Why should Europe do anything only to make a contained situation worse. that they have nothing riding on?
A two-state solution enforced by the EU is not an existential crisis for Israel.
I don't think the Israelis are going to nuke their Plan B. A decent portion of dual citizens have already left. If they are willing to nuke Europe for forcing a two-state solution onto them, by force if necessary, then that already says everything we need to know about our Greatest Ally.
But it wouldn't get that far, the Israelis would fold like a cheap suit if the EU plausibly threatened to enforce a two-state solution with the threat of force, with the backing of the majority of the world community. The international community brought Israel into this world, if Israel is going to throw nukes to stop a two-state solution then that is a big problem for the entire world which needs to be solved.
History rhymes, that would end poorly for Israel, but it wouldn't come to that.
You realize Israel has already, again, brought the region to the brink of war? The purpose of enforcing a two-state solution onto Israel with international administration of Jerusalem would be to prevent the likelihood of a regional war which Western support of Israel is currently enabling under the status quo.
You just explained why a regional war is a catastrophe for European and American interests. I've already explained that these military operations in the Middle East are a huge burden of resources and credibility, now we are fighting Yemen in a very expensive engagement that is probably going to last quite a while. It's our problem, it's not just Israel's problem.
I do not know what you are smoking if you call the situation "contained." It is not contained. Israel has failed for decades to contain the situation. They aren't capable of it. It's time for the international community to intervene.
Most Israeli jews dont have a second passport. Theyre for the most part, born and bred in Israel. If anything, some have a passport to Russia. Thats about it.
You propose military invading a nation and then that nation not responding? Is this not ridiculous bad faith? If you invade a nuclear armed nation, why are you even remotely surprised in response? Europe would deserve a nuke or two if they were that stupid.
The world didnt bring Israel into this world? What are you even on about? The British limited immigration to Palestine during the Holocaust. America embargoed Israel from 1948-1962, onlyproviding weapons sales when they also sold to Egypt. The British and Americans tried to limit arms going to the Israelis during the war of independence. It was the Soviet Union, France and Czechoslovakia that allowed arm sales to israel that helped the Israelis win. The israelis arent dependent on arms sales any longer.
I mean....if Israel uses a nuke, it means they already made the rational calculation your going to destroy their survival. Why not use a nuke if thats the case?
And you would station European troops inside Palestine and Israel?
Europe cant even defend its borders, and you want it to manage a conflict in the middle east? Youd have 7-8 million angry Israeli Jews doing an insurgency, and possibly 5 million Palestinians, because they would not likely react to European forces being maintained there positvely.
Yes...50 years ago. Not today. No one is going to war over Gaza or the West Bank. No one cares enough. Not Egypt. Not Jordan. Hezbollah is content lighting some rockets on fire at the Israeli north.
And Ive just explained why enforcing a solution just to make an even bigger mess for almost no gain seems ridiculous. There is no regional war going on for the West Bank and Gaza. Why do you propose a military solution to something that doesnt even matter to Europe? Why do you propose a solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict at all, when no one in the Middle East cares enough except for Iranian proxies which mainly focus on attacking Israel?
You also seem to think most of these military operations in the Middle East are for israels sake. They arent. Israel was neutral about the invasion of Iraq. No Netanyahu wasnt Prime Minister even though he was in favor during the time, Ariel Sharon was. Israel didnt care about Gaddafi in Libya. Houthis are being bombed because they attack all shipping going through the red sea, not just Israeli. Almost none of these military operations are for Israels sake. Israel fights alone usually, at most relying on foreign arm imports when necessary, and rely on domestic arms manufacturers when it can.
I mean they mostly have. The West Bank doesnt explode in violence. The only reason Gaza became such a handful was that Israel chose to leave it. Why pray tell, should Israel deoccupy the West Bank and Gaza when the history has shown that they are contained when Israel has military control, and the region doesnt ignite on fire without big political moves.
For someone who wants less problems for Europe, it seems very counter intuitive to desire a possible military action against Israel and enforce a failed Palestinian state, which would likely set up a regional war when there isnt one anyway.
From what it sounds like, you seem to think Israel is a weak little state that will fold at the drop of the hat. They arent. They are the Middle East's Prussia. A military with a state.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth... Israel is this invincible Middle East Prussia, but then at the same time Israel's survival is threated by a Palestinian state. Which is it?
Forcing Israel to accept a two-state solution is not going to destroy Israel. It might destroy some expansionist ambitions fueled by fanatical belief in biblical prophecy. And that's a good thing, that has not been good for the region.
That's why Israel would capitulate. If the entire world is pressuring Israel to accept a two-state solutions, with EU peacekeepers to put down any troublemakers on either side to make it happen, there's no reason to humor the notion of Israel nuking Europe.
This is a whole other debate. They publicly had one position, but privately they funneled bogus intelligence about WMDs to the White House, including claims like an Iraqi spy supplying a 9/11 hijacker with Anthrax while in Prague. Israel pushed this intelligence in October, just a month after the WTC and anthrax attacks.
Because the US/EU has no control over Israel yet we are responsible for and impacted by what happens in the Middle East. When the Yemenis shut down shipping lanes, it's the problem of the United States. You've already explained why a regional war in the Middle East would be a catastrophe for Europe, so why do you keep asking why the US/EU cares what happens there?
If it were up to me, there would be a one-state solution with equal political rights between Israelis and Palestinians, and constitutional protections for any minority groups. But you would regard that as a bigger existential threat than a two-state solution. So the reality is you have no solutions, you are demanding we accept the status quo, or demanding we accept an ethnic cleansing of the region which will destroy our credibility and myths surrounding our own hegemony. The international community is getting tired of it, and yes they brought Israel into this world with a vote. That's the sort of origin story that gives the demands of the international community a lot of weight.
I have to say, the very idea of lethargic, cowardly Europe trying to occupy Israel is about as unserious as it gets. Europeans don't even have the political will to defend their own back yard in Ukraine, let alone shed blood in the middle east. Besides, how do you suppose "EU peacekeepers [...] put down any troublemakers" such as Hamas, any better than Israel can? As in, technically, how? Your track record in fighting guerillas isn't very good.
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