Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

[whYNOT]

19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Now if Israel was not a Jewish state, supporting individual rights, then there would be nothing totalitarian about Zionism. But then, that's not Zionism.

It's directed at that and many such opinions I see here, that I wrote "The harsh bigotry of impossible, unrealistic expectations" (leveled at Israel).

Israel IS imperfect, by unreal (- and mystical -) expectations. The issues and problems that other, free-ish nations have been struggling with, it appears by its detractors, that Israel ought to have easily overcome. Despite huge obstacles and many enemies around a small land, a spot which is the microcosm of the world's hopes and fears.

By its enemies one can judge it.

You need only look at and contrast the civilized standards, liberty and achievements of that country with the range of suppressions - theocratic, monarchist, etc., - in all the countries in that region and Israel stands apart.

For the fundamentalist terrorists like Hamas against that nation, they are not on the same page, morally, humanely or democratically.

BUT, Hamas with evasions and moral equivocation, are given equal, even superior status, by outsiders who despise Jews/israelis.

Access granted to any and all incomers to flood into Israel would eventually, or rapidly - by genocide - end their national identity -- or greatly reduce Jews' numbers.

(The internal population of Muslims certainly are not leaving Israel, the immigration applications from Palestinians to domicile there is continuous). 

By playing on demographics and "the right to return", do the PA and Hamas keep the issue incendiary: "No negotiation, no recognition", from Abbas - when given the most equitable terms for a separate state .

I repeat, Palestinians want it all, and are prepared to be patient, awaiting Israel's downfall, by force and any means.

Abroad, with pro-Palestine fervor, the sentiment I noticed decades ago has been exploding: Israel is the root cause of Islamist hatred of the West and its terror assaults there.

There are over a billion Muslims and only 20 million Jews in the world. Simple equation. Get rid of that little nation which causes our troubles, allow its sacrifice,  and we will placate the Islamic world and end our fears...

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Judaism is "ethno-religious". Part ethnicity, part faith. One may choose to drop the convictions entirely and still identify "Jewish" in one's own eyes, or not, especially in others'.

Both of these would be an irrational and collectivistic basis to found a country.

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

found a place they could make their own.

Making property claims based on your ancestors? Very collectivistic.

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Internationally - *legally* - granted/partitioned for Jews - before anyone forgets.

Precisely the problem we have referred to. And of course this doesn't justify Hamas, just so no one drops the context if they read this. But it is a problem nevertheless.

[Easy Truth]

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

BUT, Hamas with evasions and moral equivocation, are given equal, even superior status, by outsiders who despise Jews/israelis.

Hamas, the organization, the bureaucracy is the evil segment of the Palestinian population. It is a segment. And it is in control. The settlers that kill Palestinians are Israeli citizens. A segment. They don't represent all of Israel.

The right-wing government of Sharon onward etc. has been a segment in control. Voted in like Hamas.

Now there is no moral equivalency at one particular time or another. Each committed something horrible, ultimately bombing babies versus chopping their heads off. Right now babies are being pulled out of the rubble in Gaza as one can watch the video. No one chopped their heads, they were crushed under the rubble. There is no moral equivalency there? Maybe not exactly equal but there is quite a bit. Each offense did not elicit an immediate reaction from the other side at that time. But in aggregate, you have two segments that are "representing" the whole and punishing innocents of the other side and using retaliation as justification.

If we look at the whole picture as collectives, Israel looks better. A more Western culture, modern, productive, etc. But the conflict is about ownership. Who does the land belong to? Does it belong to some ethno-religious people who claim their religion as their ownership right?

Just because some countries, the leaders claim their territory as being a particular religion, India saying Hindu, Saudi Arabia saying, Sunni Islam, Malaysian Bhudists, or northern Irish Protestants claiming the land for their people is not a support for individual rights. At its core Zionism has this fault. This irrational foundation has and will cause wars and will cause people to dislike the Jewish people forever.

[whYNOT]

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Both of these would be an irrational and collectivistic basis to found a country.

Making property claims based on your ancestors? Very collectivistic.

Precisely the problem we have referred to. And of course this doesn't justify Hamas, just so no one drops the context if they read this. But it is a problem nevertheless.

Again, the tacit expectation now applying Objectivist standards (- "collectivist" or individualist) that the Jew has to somehow and consistently be 'better' than other people and countries.

"Unreal and impossible expectations" ?

Although that is a sort of backhand compliment to their levels of success, they are human beings not saints.

As compared to lower standards (i.e. "They can't help themselves") expected of the Islamist enemies of Jews  - (which tacitly indicates an inherent lack of free will in attitudes towards Islamists especially by their Leftist fans at large).

Certainly: An assessment of acts should not be prejudged by "expectations", all parties must be held to an objective standard.

(the Leftist ideology never departs from the deterministic, binary "victim-victimizer" mold, which Leftists seem to relish. And that's how leftists are the loudest supporters of Hamas/Palestinians, for all that they are proven to be brutally violent.  I guess the perennial "victim", the Palestinian, is uplifted by them in order that he remains "the victim" permanently.

I imagine their disgust if Palestinians were to volitionally and rationally opt for the good life and made peace with Israel.

Back to the Zionists. They did what they deemed essential in order to survive as individuals and a people of an increasingly repressed race-religion in Europe. I'd say it was rational and moral to move out. Later and present events proved them right. Evidently, the general vilification of Jews - by "tribe" - doesn't ever cease, only its justification varies. 

"Collectivist" cooperation was dictated by the Jews' necessity for survival. Once in a secure nation, they who chose could be "individualist".

Edited November 5, 2023 by whYNOT

[Grames]

It occurs to me that the end of Israel would be the end of AIPAC, the political action committee responsible to funding the entirety of the existing corrupt political establishment of the American government.  And so I think about this and about what I should desire to see happen..

[whYNOT]

49 minutes ago, Grames said:

It occurs to me that the end of Israel would be the end of AIPAC, the political action committee responsible to funding the entirety of the existing corrupt political establishment of the American government.  And so I think about this and about what I should desire to see happen..

For the end of those pro-Israel US lobby groups, I couldn't agree more. (Not for "the end of Israel").

I've always said there should be "some daylight" between Israel and the USA - exactly because I value and have affection for both, I believe their tight relationship isn't healthy for the independence of each, yet fine to maintain a lasting friendship and dialogue.   

Edited November 5, 2023 by whYNOT

[AlexL]

6 hours ago, Grames said:

AIPAC, the political action committee responsible to funding the entirety of the existing corrupt political establishment of the American government

Thank you so much! Thanks to you I finally understand why the US government is corrupt: it is because of the Jews !

[whYNOT]

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Hamas, the organization, the bureaucracy is the evil segment of the Palestinian population. It is a segment. And it is in control. The settlers that kill Palestinians are Israeli citizens. A segment. They don't represent all of Israel.

The right-wing government of Sharon onward etc. has been a segment in control. Voted in like Hamas.

 

I could show loads of facts about how monolithic the belief of Palestinians/Arabs has been. There is an 'inborn'* racial superiority over Jews, with the Muslim texts commanding they be killed, mixed in with rage that these inferior Jewish infidels have always defeated them. Their leaders, Arafat on, have been a reflection of fanatical populist beliefs. The majority support for Hamas, on the West Bank too, demonstrates this. Although Fatah is more pragmatic; the leaders realize they depend on Israel's patronage. The right and left in Israel are not so far apart - neither moves from the basic principle, the nation's survival. Their methods and policies will vary. Among those who vote for each, I think one can find vast numbers of individual nuances.  So the comparisons are chalk and cheese.

What is this about "the settlers"? Overmany views of Zionist-hating Youtube channels? The Israelis are no more "settlers" than say, the Americans are today. It is only that Israel, some postmodern intellectuals might say, is a recent "settler/colonized" addition - that they catch all the guilt fallout for older ones and for all the European nations that had colonies. Israel's "right to exist" is the only one apparently questionable, ongoing perhaps 100 years from now. 

*Taught and inculcated into most young Palestinian minds, I mean.

Edited November 5, 2023 by whYNOT

[EC]

Again, this is much much larger than these discussions present. Remember the full context and drop the relatively irrelevant details. Look at the forest and not all the trees. 

Hamas is an Iranian proxy and Iran is in cooperation with the rest of the rising Axis of Evil which includes them, Russia, China, N. Korea and lessor dictatorships worldwide. They are also infiltrating Western countries including the United States, with the mass anti-Semitism on college campuses being reminiscent of 1939 being an explicit example, via the mass spreading of collectivist ideas that encompasses the entire political spectrum from the evil Left to the religious Right.

The entire purpose and cause is mass irrational immorality on a global scale. They either want to create a worldwide dictatorship of a mixture of statist/collectivist/altruistic ideologies and/or destroy civilization in the process. This is the one true goal of nearly every event happening worldwide. 

Don't drop context.

[Doug Morris]

The following is my understanding of the underlying history based on what I have read.  Please feel free to offer evidence for or against this narrative.

The Palestinians have been cursed with bad leadership from the very beginning, and this is the fundamental cause of the trouble.

If things had gone the way Israel wanted from the beginning, there would have been no displacements and no rational reason for conflict or enmity.  Israelis were buying land and establishing settlements but were not displacing anyone and wanted to live in peace. 

The Arab governments appointed themselves the leaders of the Palestinians.  They adopted a policy of crushing Israel and encouraging Palestinians to leave Israel during the war, supposedly to return after Israel was crushed.

Israel both gained and lost territory in the resulting war, resulting in displacements on both sides and in pressure to preserve displacements as compensation for other displacements.

If the Arab governments had brought this off and crushed Israel, this would have been a great evil and not in the best interests of the Palestinians, but it would probably not have been a disaster for the Palestinians.

Of course they did not bring it off; Israel survived.

Israel was willing to let Palestinians return, but they had to set an eventual deadline for this.

The rational, rights-respecting action for the Arab governments would have been to encourage the Palestinians to return.  A somewhat constructive alternative would have been to encourage the Palestinians to resettle elsewhere in the Arab world.  The Arab governments did neither.  They thought they could gain political advantage by turning the Palestinians into a permanent refugee population.

The Arab governments expected to control this refugee population.  They didn't bring that off either.  

The Palestinians became a force in their own right with their own leadership.  There wasn't any orderly process for picking leaders, so the new leaders appointed themselves by force.  It was still bad leadership.  They were terrorists.  They didn't try to follow policies of productiveness and negotiation that could have improved the situation.  They followed a policy of violence that continued conflict and destruction and stimulated enmity.

At one point a left-leaning Israeli government offered a generous deal that would have created a two-state solution that would have greatly improved the situation.  The Palestinians still had bad leadership, the terrorist Arafat who took the generosity as a sign of weakness and thought he could get even more by rejecting the deal.  What he got was a political shift to the right in Israel which resulted in less generosity and a pushing of the destructive settlement policy.

Fatah has become more reasonable.  If they led all the Palestinians we could hope for a decent outcome.   But Hamas leads the Gaza strip, and they are evil terrorists who have created the present horrible war.

 

 

 

[Easy Truth]

2 hours ago, EC said:

They either want to create a worldwide dictatorship of a mixture of statist/collectivist/altruistic ideologies and/or destroy civilization in the process. This is the one true goal of nearly every event happening worldwide.

It's an untenable premise to say that China, Iran et. al. want to "destroy civilization". They can't because they would be destroyed themselves. (you might as well start out by saying they are all suicidal)

They want to destroy the balance of power, they want more power.

We currently have a mixture of statist/collectivist/altruistic ideologies (not originated by the axis of evil). "The enemy is here" in some sense within ourselves. But regarding this conflict, as far as statism goes, both sides in this conflict are fighting for a state that benefits them over the rights of others. Both believe their collective is in the right, both assert ownership as a collective. One single state that supports individual rights would suffice for both. 

Some in this thread are painting Palestinians as "permanent savages" that consider Jews as less than. The idea is that they can never change, the hate will never go away, etc. It may be true that some Palestinians are criminals but not all of them because such a society does NOT survive. Meanwhile, part of their belief system includes the first testament of the Jews. They believe in the same god, the god of Adam and Eve. They believe the same things all the way to Abraham. Now, are we to emphasize that they're both irrational or that they have something in common?

Both sides are human before they are religious. As humans, there is a conflict of interest, a conflict about collective ownership. As humans, they both have a rational capability and this problem is solvable. Not simple, but solvable. We know the solution, "one state or multiple states ... that respect individual rights" where ownership and "rights" are not collectively dolled out based on your DNA or religious affiliation and where no one may initiate force.

There will come a time when the war will stop. Some on both sides will still want revenge. But those people will have to make peace within themselves as the world moves on.

[EC]

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

It's an untenable premise to say that China, Iran et. al. want to "destroy civilization". They can't because they would be destroyed themselves. (you might as well start out by saying they are all suicidal)

They want to destroy the balance of power, they want more power.

We currently have a mixture of statist/collectivist/altruistic ideologies (not originated by the axis of evil). "The enemy is here" in some sense within ourselves. But regarding this conflict, as far as statism goes, both sides in this conflict are fighting for a state that benefits them over the rights of others. Both believe their collective is in the right, both assert ownership as a collective. One single state that supports individual rights would suffice for both. 

Some in this thread are painting Palestinians as "permanent savages" that consider Jews as less than. The idea is that they can never change, the hate will never go away, etc. It may be true that some Palestinians are criminals but not all of them because such a society does NOT survive. Meanwhile, part of their belief system includes the first testament of the Jews. They believe in the same god, the god of Adam and Eve. They believe the same things all the way to Abraham. Now, are we to emphasize that they're both irrational or that they have something in common?

Both sides are human before they are religious. As humans, there is a conflict of interest, a conflict about collective ownership. As humans, they both have a rational capability and this problem is solvable. Not simple, but solvable. We know the solution, "one state or multiple states ... that respect individual rights" where ownership and "rights" are not collectively dolled out based on your DNA or religious affiliation and where no one may initiate force.

There will come a time when the war will stop. Some on both sides will still want revenge. But those people will have to make peace within themselves as the world moves on.

That is correct. That is the premise that both Dagny and Reardon had to come to grips with, that because of being the followers of the morality of death they don't want to live.

[Grames]

17 hours ago, AlexL said:

Thank you so much! Thanks to you I finally understand why the US government is corrupt: it is because of the Jews !

It used to be the case that America was run by a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite.  It isn't anymore.  Those who are the elite consider themselves a people apart.  This link still works https://archive.is/5yeSC 

[necrovore]

13 minutes ago, Grames said:

This link still works

At best, all it proves is the existence of one crackpot.

[Grames]

23 minutes ago, necrovore said:

At best, all it proves is the existence of one crackpot.

No, this guy is what passes for establishment today.  From https://cis.org/Steinlight

 

Quote

 

Stephen Steinlight

 

Fellow

One of the nation’s most insightful voices on immigration, Dr. Stephen Steinlight is a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) in Washington, DC. He focuses on ascending trends in immigration and immigration policy, America’s changing demography and culture, the politics of immigration, the impact of immigration on the nation’s social cohesion, and the consequences of massive low-skill immigration on America’s most vulnerable groups. He is also concerned with the nexus between immigration and national security in an age of Jihadist terrorism and significant Muslim migration to Western Europe and the United States.

Dr. Steinlight has testified before the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives and the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate. He has also provided expert testimony before state legislatures and State Freedom of Information Commissions. He has shared podiums with members of the House and presidential candidates. He has also addressed hundreds of state legislator and civic and religious groups across the country, been a panelist at conferences and public forums, and is frequently interviewed on radio and TV. He has written extensively on many of the central issues in the immigration debate.

Prior to joining CIS, he was Executive Director of the American Anti-Slavery Group, the Boston-based abolitionist organization. For eight years he was National Affairs Director at the American Jewish Committee (AJC) where he oversaw its public policy agenda centered on First Amendment issues, civil rights, immigration, and social policy. While at AJC, Dr. Steinlight was a member of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and founded and served as Senior Advisor to the critically-acclaimed commonQuest: The Magazine of Black-Jewish Relations.

He also served as Vice President of the National Conference of Christians and Jews (NCCJ) for three years. He convened the first global interreligious dialogues involving dissident Muslim scholars; played a lead role in propagating community-oriented policing; worked on issues affecting Native Americans; and directed the largest survey of intergroup attitudes ever undertaken in America: Taking America’s Pulse: A Survey of Intergroup Attitudes in the United States.

Prior to joining NCCJ, he was Director of Education at the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the body responsible for developing the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Dr. Steinlight was co-creator of the Museum’s “Remember the Children Exhibition.”

A magna cum laude graduate of Columbia College, Columbia University, upon graduation he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa and received the Columbia College Alumni Merit Award. He was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, a Kellett Fellow, and a Marshall Scholar at the University of Sussex, England, where he received his M.Phil and PhD. He was a professor of English and Victorian Studies for 20 years, teaching at the University of Sussex, the State University of New York; the Institút Britannique de Paris; and the School of Graduate Studies, New York University. The recipient of numerous academic honors and visiting professorship, he has been a Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities and is currently an Associate Fellow at Timothy Dwight College, Yale University.

Dr. Steinlight is author of two books: Fractious Nation? Unity and Division in Contemporary American Life (UC-Berkeley Press, 2003); and Children of Abraham (K’TAV 2002): An Introduction to Islam and Islamism co-authored with one of the foremost scholar/opponents of Islamism, the late Khalid Durán. Both authors received fatwas for having written the book. Dr. Steinlight was also selected by the United States Council for Peace to join a team of conflict-resolution and civil society experts sent to Macedonia in 2003 to maintain the ceasefire in that nation’s civil war and create a process for President Trajkovski and his cabinet to work with leading jurists and former rebels to amend its constitution.

Dr. Steinlight lives in New York City.

 

 

[whYNOT]

14 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

The following is my understanding of the underlying history based on what I have read.  Please feel free to offer evidence for or against this narrative.

The Palestinians have been cursed with bad leadership from the very beginning, and this is the fundamental cause of the trouble.

If things had gone the way Israel wanted from the beginning, there would have been no displacements and no rational reason for conflict or enmity.  Israelis were buying land and establishing settlements but were not displacing anyone and wanted to live in peace. 

The Arab governments appointed themselves the leaders of the Palestinians.  They adopted a policy of crushing Israel and encouraging Palestinians to leave Israel during the war, supposedly to return after Israel was crushed.

Israel both gained and lost territory in the resulting war, resulting in displacements on both sides and in pressure to preserve displacements as compensation for other displacements.

If the Arab governments had brought this off and crushed Israel, this would have been a great evil and not in the best interests of the Palestinians, but it would probably not have been a disaster for the Palestinians.

Of course they did not bring it off; Israel survived.

Israel was willing to let Palestinians return, but they had to set an eventual deadline for this.

The rational, rights-respecting action for the Arab governments would have been to encourage the Palestinians to return.  A somewhat constructive alternative would have been to encourage the Palestinians to resettle elsewhere in the Arab world.  The Arab governments did neither.  They thought they could gain political advantage by turning the Palestinians into a permanent refugee population.

The Arab governments expected to control this refugee population.  They didn't bring that off either.  

The Palestinians became a force in their own right with their own leadership.  There wasn't any orderly process for picking leaders, so the new leaders appointed themselves by force.  It was still bad leadership.  They were terrorists.  They didn't try to follow policies of productiveness and negotiation that could have improved the situation.  They followed a policy of violence that continued conflict and destruction and stimulated enmity.

At one point a left-leaning Israeli government offered a generous deal that would have created a two-state solution that would have greatly improved the situation.  The Palestinians still had bad leadership, the terrorist Arafat who took the generosity as a sign of weakness and thought he could get even more by rejecting the deal.  What he got was a political shift to the right in Israel which resulted in less generosity and a pushing of the destructive settlement policy.

Fatah has become more reasonable.  If they led all the Palestinians we could hope for a decent outcome.   But Hamas leads the Gaza strip, and they are evil terrorists who have created the present horrible war.

 

 

 

Trouble is, in broad strokes, the Israelis have been made victims of their own (initial) tolerance and benevolence. First, they needed to win every war to survive. The defensive wars they were forced into meant they were unprepared and unwilling to be conquerors of land - and - the people who came with it. "Total victory", could entail evicting all inhabitants back into the Arab host countries - who'd initiated the war - but that they would not do; or settling Israelis on it and try to *share* the land (specifically, Judea and Samaria).

They offered the "land for peace" deal which succeeded with Egypt's Nasser: he accepted the bargain to regain the Sinai - but refused to take back Gaza, administered by Egypt before '67. By "Total Victory in self-defence", Israel again might have legitimately emptied the Gazan population into Egypt, and did not - humanely one may say.

Israel introduced some thousands of settlers and businesses and kept open borders for a period, until Hamas was elected, and the Gvt ordered their pullout. Not one "settler" was left. 2006 marked an "inflection point" after which Gazans could have moved to complete autonomy and coexistence. Hamas and continuous wars were their answer.

The weak point has been the religious West Bank settlers on their "holy land", who receive condemnation for trying to expand their land-share with Palestinians - but have an undeniable argument: if Israel makes a deal to pull them out for a (pretended and temporary) Two State solution, the West Bank will vote out the PA and become, rinse - repeat, another Hamas-run (or any terrorist) entity sponsored by Islamist nations. 

Palestinian refugees have been directly the victims of their own people and own hatred for Jews.

Edited November 6, 2023 by whYNOT

[stansfield123]

On 11/3/2023 at 8:39 PM, Easy Truth said:

I assume you don't really mean this. At least in the long run. In the short run, I could see an argument like "We will fight to achieve a lasting peace". War as a means to it. Because the way it's worded it implies that you are for perpetual war and I suspect you are not for perpetual war.

I thought I was clear, but I don't mind repeating myself: I'm neither "for war", nor "for peace". I'm not for war because no rational person would be. And I'm not for peace because no rational person would think peace with a totalitarian ideology is an option.

Pursuing something that can't happen is the height of foolishness.

I'm for acknowledging the basic reality that peace is not possible, and devising a strategy that keeps conflict to a minimum. That strategy, for Israel, involves keeping the Islamists away from its borders. Because Islamists will always attack Israel. It's what they do.

The two main tactics for achieving that are:

1. Targeting any Islamist group which tries to establish a foothold in Israel's vicinity with deadly force.

2. Installing and supporting a non-Islamist regime wherever possible. Right now, there is one in place in Jordan, Egypt, and the West Bank. It's very important for this regime to be authoritarian, to the extent that's possible. A democratic government doesn't have the ability to stand up to the Islamists. That's why Hezbollah is the de facto government of Lebanon, that's why Hamas took over Gaza when the Americans foolishly supported democracy there, that's why Iraq is weak and under Iranian influence, etc.

The US, Britain and France should adopt a similar policy, but spanning the entire Middle East. The US of course had this strategy in place for many decades, before Bush and Obama fucked everything up. They should return to this strategy, by unequivocally supporting autocratic regimes which fight the Islamists. Regimes like the House of Saud, Egypt's military government, etc.

Also, the above mentioned three western countries should very strongly encourage all other western allies to stay out of Middle Eastern politics. In general, the policy should be to leave this stuff to countries which have the will and ability to actually project power. If you don't own an aircraft carrier, you should also not own an opinion on what to do with the Middle East.

[AlexL]

16 hours ago, Grames said:

On 11/5/2023 at 10:11 AM, AlexL said:

Thank you so much! Thanks to you I finally understand why the US government is corrupt: it is because of the Jews !

It used to be the case that America was run by a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite.  It isn't anymore [...]

1. The subject was not what group has more influence on the government, but your suggestion that the source of the corruption is The Jews. 

You still owe me a proof of your claim about Jewish "settlers" having done things, similar to "beheaded babies, or ... fucking the corpses of young women"

So: you better prove these or retract. Especially since this forum for Objectivism fans.

[stansfield123]

On 11/3/2023 at 8:39 PM, Easy Truth said:

And here is where the aggression starts. With this assertion. With this belief. If you had said for the most part it is not proven to be totalitarian, you might have had a point, but to say that there is NOTHING totalitarian about it, a government based on religion? I mean, it's obvious. Of course, there's going to be some totalitarianism.

Now if Israel was not a Jewish state, supporting individual rights, then there would be nothing totalitarian about Zionism. But then, that's not Zionism.

Israel is a "Jewish state" the same way France is a "French state". Zionism isn't the imposition of Judaism, it's Jewish nationalism. It's EXACTLY THE SAME as French nationalism. If you asked Macron tomorrow whether he would like France to remain French, he would say "Absolutement." Exactly the same answer Bibi would give, if you asked him whether he wants Israel to stay Jewish.

That's what a "national state" is. That's what "nationalism" means: it's the idea Europeans had, back in the 19th century, of replacing empires, kingdoms, dukedoms, and all the other aristocratic states, with states which draw their borders based on the ethnic identity of the inhabitants. And, once those borders are established, "nationalism" becomes the desire to preserve that ethnic identity.

And the vast majority of relatively capitalist countries follow this nationalist model. Just. Like. Israel. And that's no coincidence. There's immense value in the 1000 year language, culture and history of the French, or in the many thousands year language, culture and history of the Jews. Immense value to the state as a whole (the stability and wisdom of state institutions which often follow a model that's been tested and perfected over the course of centuries), and to the individual lives of the people who live in that state. The Jewish identity (with those thousands of years of culture that implies) is the reason why Jews have better lives than most others, both in Israel and elsewhere. It's why so many Nobel winners are Jews, so many billionaires are Jews, etc.

In short, French nationalism and Jewish nationalism (as I just described them) are both positive ideas, which contribute to positive outcomes both on the state and on the individual level. Obviously, ultra-nationalism goes beyond what I just described, and it doesn't lead to positive outcomes. But ultra-nationalism is atypical both in France and in Israel.

Back to the point:the notion that Israel is a theocratic state is a blatant lie. It's not, it's a typical western, national state. Aside from Switzerland, I can't even think of a major western country that's not a nationalist state. This includes the "monarchies" ... because those are strictly symbolic, the government is nationalist, not aristocratic.

Israel is also a democracy, of course, and, like all democracies with religious people in them, they have political representatives which push religion. These politicians represent minorities which identify by their religion, and vote accordingly. In Israel, there are two minorities which vote like that: people who vote based on their Judaism, and people who vote based on being Muslim. They are BOTH minorities (the orthodox Jewish vote is in fact smaller than the Muslim vote). They are both smaller minorities than Evangelicals in the US. Neither of them runs Israel to any significant degree.

I'll edit in a tldr, in all caps, so it sinks in: ISRAEL IS LESS RELIGIOUS THAN THE US. Americans sniping at Israel over religion is ridiculous. And, of course, Muslims sniping at anyone over religion is just madness.

Edited November 6, 2023 by stansfield123

[AlexL]

1 hour ago, stansfield123 said:

Israel is a "Jewish state" the same way France is a "French state"

My view is that Israel has to keep a solid Jewish majority.

The purpose is double:

1. to keep a solid electoral majority
2. and to keep a military superiority over the potential enemies.

#2 stems from the (sad but real fact) that in case of war the Jews will be ready to risk their lives more than non-Jews.

[Eiuol]

2 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

Zionism isn't the imposition of Judaism, it's Jewish nationalism. It's EXACTLY THE SAME as French nationalism.

As if that's a good thing?

I mean, this is an ethnic identity, and founding or operating a country on ethnic identity is a bad thing. Of course, there are degrees of bad, and not all countries do this in the worst way possible. But to the extent they do, this is bad. Describing the way that this kind of nationalism has played a part in history is not a demonstration that it is a good thing. 

56 minutes ago, AlexL said:

My view is that Israel has to keep a solid Jewish majority.

I love ethnic purity, too! 

 

[Grames]

3 hours ago, stansfield123 said:

ISRAEL IS LESS RELIGIOUS THAN THE US.

This is quite correct, and even worse than a theocracy.  Jewishness is based on blood.  Israel is an ethno-state.  Jews not observing the religion are still counted as jews (all over the world, not just the practice in Israel).   The very notion of jewishness is intrinsically racist in that poisonous supremacist fashion that marked Hitler's racism.  Ironically it is jews leading the way in crusading against racism and encouraging mass immigration and ethnicity mixing everywhere except in Israel.  Actually, if you think about it is not ironic at all.

Muslims are more prone to theocracy and less to racism.

[AlexL]

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

11 hours ago, AlexL said:

My view is that Israel has to keep a solid Jewish majority.

I love ethnic purity, too! 

My comment was not about ethnic purity.

But you are incapable of challenging it without misrepresenting it.

[whYNOT]

A potted version of Zionist-Israel history; nation-building, yes.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjAx4H8kLKCAxXsU0EAHXdyABMQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2018%2F11%2F20%2F18080016%2Fisrael-zionism-war-1948&usg=AOvVaw0UKMFc6edw8W7xKNQ6XFsn&opi=89978449

Edited November 7, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

17 hours ago, Grames said:

This is quite correct, and even worse than a theocracy.  Jewishness is based on blood.  Israel is an ethno-state.  Jews not observing the religion are still counted as jews (all over the world, not just the practice in Israel).   The very notion of jewishness is intrinsically racist in that poisonous supremacist fashion that marked Hitler's racism. .

Muslims are more prone to theocracy and less to racism.

That poison was the product of people being treated with a few 1000 years of racial-religious contempt, repression and murderous cleansing. Jews obviously felt "set apart", for all that they had been (in recent centuries), the most assimilated and loyal French, German, Polish, British, etc., subjects.

Right, "based on blood", born into by (maternal) ancestry and not simple for outsiders to convert into. That most (Leftist) Jews politically and socially, are or purport to be non/anti-racist is a contradiction in convictions.

Earlier Christians of course condemned the Jewish faith's perceived 'selfish arrogance'. Like the Fundamentalist Muslims now, as we know, they were aggressively proselytic, explaining why race was unimportant to them: They want ~everyone~ converted eventually, by preference or force

Anyway, if one is to observe individual rights, a person's "freedom of action" and choices is not one's concern and business. One can and will blast religion, as religion, and equally respect a person's right to practice one.

Rationally, the Zionists wanted their invaluable freedom to act within their self-determining nation, it seems to me: For the religious Jews - and atheist/agnostic Jews - and any other types. Who were ALL without distinction - as now - treated with bigotry or in danger for their lives In Europe -- merely "by virtue of blood".

First, they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew and did not speak up, then they came for the Christians, but I was not.., then they came for the collectivist non-believers, but ..., then they came for the individualist non-believers ... and there was no one left to speak out.

Edited November 7, 2023 by whYNOT