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 -
Look, if you provide 14 billion in military aid to one side and a few hundreds of millions in civilian aid to the other side (openly talking about how you try to prevent it going to their military wing), you clearly support the former over the latter. This is absolutely basic logic. Every US politician will tell you that they love Israel and hate Hamas.
Who cares if Palestine has nothing? Who cares if the Israelis have to pay for their own bombs? Not my problem!
If you dont care for why the Israelis pay for their own bombs, why do you even care about imposing a solution? I understand not wnating to give military weapons, but the Israelis can likely just succeed without that.
The Arab states dont care enough about Palestine to intervene. They dont cut off trade, they dont oil embargo the West. Why care about what Israel does enough to impose a solution, like by embargoing trade?
The Arabs get angry with us when we provide aid to Israel, just like the Israelis get angry with Iran when Iran aids Hamas/Hezbollah. It makes it much harder to work with Arab governments and it angers Arabs, who can do us harm.
Why did Osama Bin Laden hate the West? In large part he resented that we were helping Israel dominate Palestine.
I have no interest in an Israel-Palestine solution, just like I don't know or care about who should govern South Sudan, Somalia or Myanmar. Let them handle their own affairs. What I want is for the West not to be attached to this dead weight that causes us problems in so many fields. Wouldn't it be great if we enjoyed the support of the Middle Eastern public, or at least got along with them like China does?
The Middle East is run by authoritarian governments. The Middle Eastern public barely matters. The Saudis, with most of the oil, are concerned about the Americans leaving the region because the Americans no longer care to be involved.
The Arab states are no longer hostile to Israel like they used to be. The Abraham Accords broke that assumption, when Arab states normalized with Israel for no gestures towards the Palestinians. They mostly dont care enough about them.
The Palestinians dont get in the way of dealings between the Middle East and America and Europe. Its largely just some past time that has no affect on international relations.
We spent 20 years fighting Islamic terrorism and spent trillions of dollars fighting much of the Middle Eastern public and you think their public opinion doesn't matter?
The Abraham Accords caught... Bahrain and the UAE. This great success was followed up with Sudan, of all countries. Not Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia: any of the relevant powers. UAE is vaguely relevant I suppose.
So that leaves just the UAE. Not a great success.
Did you miss the Yemen/Red Sea war we're now fighting? Iran and the US are fighting a proxy war in Iraq as we speak, shelling eachother.
We spent that because of Western decisions to. Not Israeli or Israeli concerns. Islamism and Islamic terrorism has declined. Isis was its heydey. Secularism is spreading in the Middle East.
First off, it got UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, and Sudan. Two...Egypt has had relations with Israel for over 40 years, ever since Israel gave back the Sinai. Do you even know anything about the Middle East, if you dont know this most basic geopolitical fact? It makes anything you say come into question.
Syria is a failed state that can barely keep itself together. Its not a relevant power. Iraq is a barely holding itself together, let alone relevant. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the only ones you have a point on, and even then not much. Why? Because Saudi Arabia is offering to normalize with Israel for "steps" towards a Palestinian state. Not making one come into fruition. Just recognition that eventually one will be created. Thats very little commitment.
Bahrain still has political relations and recognizes Israel. They still are apart of the Abraham Accords. Still a major success. Still 4 Arab states that normalized with Israel.
The Iranians and US are fighting a proxy war in Iraq because the US wants to contain Iran for its own geopolitical considerations. Its as much as protecting Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, which are US aligned, from Iran. And maintaining US power in the region. Not for Israel.
Flatly wrong. The invasion of Iraq was heavily motivated by Israeli influence. Everything from Israel's false WMD intelligence to the open admissions from people in the know like Philip Zelikow, General Wesley Clark, Ruth Wedgewood, Senator Ernest Hollings and others. And people like Sharon and Netanyahu were publicly doing their usual 'they're going to get WMD's routine', urging war. Notably the Israelis panicked when Iraq let in UN weapons inspectors, switching to a position that the inspectors were going to be deceived and so the war must go on regardless, as it did: Foreign Minister Peres told reporters, "The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."
As it happens, he wasn't wrong. Dishonest people can overcome inspections, albeit in a different way than he'd like us to think.
That had nothing to do with the Abraham Accords, it had to do with a river of US aid pouring into Egypt (and some other countries like Jordan) so they'd get along with Israel. You presented the Abraham Accords as this great breakthrough, you said it broke the assumption that Arab states wouldn't have relations with Israel. If the Abraham Accords had gotten Egypt to get along with Israel, then that would've made it a success but it didn't, so it wasn't. My point stands fine, your point that the Abraham Accords were this major breakthrough remains weak.
The Iranians are fighting their proxy wars because they know they're on the chopping block, they saw exactly what happened to Iraq and Trump showed that American promises aren't worth the paper they're written on. They want all pro-US forces as far away from them as possible.
It is hard to keep yourself together when the US is occupying your territory. The problem here is the US stirring up the Middle East, causing chaos, conveniently wrecking anyone that might threaten Israel. It's expensive, it's dangerous, it causes all kinds of long-term problems for the West. It needs to stop.
What kind of bullshit is this? The Egyptians already had made peace with Israel. They mainly made peace in return for the Sinai, not American aid. Thats just a benefit.
Your obfuscating things to match your agenda. The Abraham Accords had no need for Egypt, because Egypt had already made peace. They got four Arab states to go make peace with Israel. Two of them Gulf States.
The Iranians are fighting a proxy war because they want to spread their own brand of political Islamism and revolutionary islamic govt. Pro-US forces are there to stop the spread. This helps maintain stability and aid the Saudis and by extension, other Gulf states like Bahrain, UAE and Oman.
...the US isnt occupying any of Syria. What are you even on about? You mean because the US supports the Syrian Democratic forces with a very minimal amount of troops? The Syrian Democratic Forces are local forces, mainly local Kurds and Arabs, who arent even trying to rebel against Assad anymore. They mostly want autonomy and detente with the Syrian state. The reason US forces were even there was to help the Kurds fight ISiS. It had nothing to do with Israel, and it certainly isnt an American occupation. Most of the forces are Syrian, local Kurds and Arabs who run the show. Saying the US occupies Northeastern Syria is ridiculous.
The fact that you obfuscated with Egypt leaves all of this incredibly suspect. Sharon was neutral on Iraq, and he was the Prime Minister at the time. Do you really expect the israelis to come out in full force opposition to their greatest ally? They would primarily share their thoughts in private. And Sharon was neutral.
Iraq was motivated because George W Bush had an axe to grind. His father didnt take down Saddam, and that fact irked Bush. So Bush, along with Cheney, was happy to finally take Saddam down. The Iraq war was a mistake motivated by personal interests, not any Israeli concerns.
Why can't you understand a conditional clause? If it were the Abraham Accords that got Egypt to get along with Israel, then that would've made them an achievement. The Abraham Accords got Bahrain and the UAE, of which only the UAE matters. Morocco too, which has basically nothing to do with the Middle East other than being Arab and Islamic.
They have troops there. ISIS is gone yet US troops remain. Clearly it's not about fighting ISIS. If you have troops on the soil of another country without their permission, it's an occupation.
No he wasn't. This is a blatant lie.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1404673/Sharon-urges-America-to-bring-down-Saddam.html
He also wanted an invasion of Iran after Iraq was dealt with: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/05/israel.iraq
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