Israel General Election Thread: March 17 2015

[ag]

I'll make myself clearer: can an Arab/Druze support anyone he/she wants, while retaining human decency?

Yes, of course. In Israel.

[ag]

But a Jew can't?

He can. In France.

[ag]

Into a bind of having some sort of weird discriminatory attitudes towards Israeli Jews, where you don't believe their state has a right to defense or the necessary high level of morality to hold national elections?

Nothing discriminatory. Part of my Jewish self-identification is that I do not like ispravniks of any origin. Unfortunately, all other Israeli parties have been parties of ispravniks. And I identify with the Jews. Which, in Israeli context, means Arabs.

[ag]

Condensing the discussion a bit, the problem is that, in Israeli context, even I would have been forced to join the Communist party - though, of course, ideologically I am as staunch an anti-communist as it gets. Unfortunately, at this point this is the only non-communal party - there are simply no other options available.  But that, of course, means, that you cannot make too many conclusions about an individual from his or her membership in the Communist party - there may be many good reasons to be there.

Now, of course, M. Liberman has forced the Communists to join a communal joint list, killing the last available alternative. But, at the very least, they still do have some separate identity (thank you, Mr. Khenin and Mr. Burg).

[ag]

1. In my idiolect I use ispravnik to mean "the guy who cuts Jewish beards". I admit, I do not even pretend to use it in a historic context. Try to abstract from the "historic context" and you will, hopefully, figure out what I mean.

2. As you can, probably, figure out, I have a problem considering any Zionist party "bicommunal".

3. The reason, of course, is, that, while I share with most of my Jewish brethren the fascination with Jewish history, I disagree on the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from it. Whereas I get from history the distaste to the figure of the ispravnik, Zionists merely objected to the ispravnik not being Jewish. I find that objection to be inadequate.

3a. Well, clearly, a party that these days, at the present level of diversity of US population, is represented in Congress almost exclusively by White Christians (a token Jew and a token black notwhithstanding) can hardly be perceived as non-communal.

4. Well, I guess, it is hard for me to be more explicit on why one could want to join Hadash (or to stay as far away from Israel as possible, in order to avoid joining Hadash, as is my case). To make it very plain: I do not like the ispravnik parties. More generally: I dislike nation states.

5. Meretz is a Zionist party.

I guess, I have been clear, haven´t I?

[ag]

I guess, my point becomes clearer if you read what I have been saying in the last two pages of that thread

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=207116.75

[ag]

1. In my idiolect I use ispravnik to mean "the guy who cuts Jewish beards". I admit, I do not even pretend to use it in a historic context. Try to abstract from the "historic context" and you will, hopefully, figure out what I mean.

2. As you can, probably, figure out, I have a problem considering any Zionist party "bicommunal".

3. The reason, of course, is, that, while I share with most of my Jewish brethren the fascination with Jewish history, I disagree on the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from it. Whereas I get from history the distaste to the figure of the ispravnik, Zionists merely objected to the ispravnik not being Jewish. I find that objection to be inadequate.

3a. Well, clearly, a party that these days, at the present level of diversity of US population, is represented in Congress almost exclusively by White Christians (a token Jew and a token black notwhithstanding) can hardly be perceived as non-communal.

4. Well, I guess, it is hard for me to be more explicit on why one could want to join Hadash (or to stay as far away from Israel as possible, in order to avoid joining Hadash, as is my case). To make it very plain: I do not like the ispravnik parties. More generally: I dislike nation states.

5. Meretz is a Zionist party.

I guess, I have been clear, haven´t I?

This is an objectively false statement. With your superior intellect I hope you can figure out why.

What else is a national homeland good for, if not to get your own ispravnik?

[ag]

What was wrong with Villner?

Kept supporting the USSR to the bitter end, in the late 90s when those stagnant old gits in maki central committee finally acknowledged the crimes of Stalin he splintered away with the rest of the Stalinist to form the Israeli Communist Forum. His legislative record was fairly dull considering he spent 40 years in knesset.

Maybe HP is a bit too much but he was no FF

Meir Villner... The name brings memory of my youth Then again, I am related by marriage to this gentleman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dragunsky

Can´t say I am proud of this either

[ag]

By your definition Einstein wanted to get his own Ispravnik.

But, apparently, he never wanted to live under one.

In any case, what does Einstein has to do with this? Are we discussing physics?

[ag]

Though to answer the question more directly- if a person is in his own homeland, it's very much harder to get killed off (not saying it's not impossible, but it makes it much less likely to occur).

A statement that, at the very least, requires an empirical proof.

And, in any case, shouldn´t we care not only about not being killed, but also about not killing?

[ag]

What else is a national homeland good for, if not to get your own ispravnik?

So that no one else can act as an ispravnik over you, a particularly relevant concern when it comes to the Jewish people.

There are other ways of achieving that. As, for instance, the United States has strived to.

[ag]

By your definition Einstein wanted to get his own Ispravnik.

But, apparently, he never wanted to live under one.

In any case, what does Einstein has to do with this? Are we discussing physics?

1) cite

I am going by revealed preference: he himself never moved to Israel. Clearly, he did not want a Jewish ispravnik where he lived.

[ag]

2) You said that by going to Israel the Jews were simply looking for Ispravniks of their own. While Einstein did not himself move to Israel (though he almost did at one or two times of his life), he was deeply involved in what one might consider to be the "Zionist cause".
Now here's a task for you: look up Einstein's interpretation of Zionism, since you obviously aren't familiar with it. Then tell me with a straight face that Einstein was just looking for an Ispravnik.

You see, there is that minor issue that I do not care about "interpretations of Zionism". Especially, the post-traumatic interpretations of Zionism from the late 1940s. I am not a psychoanalist. I was asked, why would I consider it impossible to vote in Israel for anybody but Hadash - I gave my reason. I think, I was clear enough.

[ag]

I really believe each point should be made in a separate comment - impossible to talk otherwise.

[ag]

Hadash in recent years has had from 3 to 4 MKs. 1 Jewish MK is, at least, 25% of that. And he (and before that, she) has been no token. And, of course, there are many more Jews on the list - it is just that they never win more than 3 or 4 seats.

[ag]

Well, I have reconciled myself to the national state of Israeli Jews. I just want to have exactly nothing to do with it - as, of course, I am not an Israeli Jew

[ag]

Last time, no Jew other than Khenin was in the top 6.

Yes, but was in top 7, I believe. This time the second Jew is at spot 20, as we have just discussed. But at this point Hadash is only one of the 4 parties in the coalition.

[ag]

1. In my idiolect I use ispravnik to mean "the guy who cuts Jewish beards". I admit, I do not even pretend to use it in a historic context. Try to abstract from the "historic context" and you will, hopefully, figure out what I mean.

2. As you can, probably, figure out, I have a problem considering any Zionist party "bicommunal".

3. The reason, of course, is, that, while I share with most of my Jewish brethren the fascination with Jewish history, I disagree on the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from it. Whereas I get from history the distaste to the figure of the ispravnik, Zionists merely objected to the ispravnik not being Jewish. I find that objection to be inadequate.

3a. Well, clearly, a party that these days, at the present level of diversity of US population, is represented in Congress almost exclusively by White Christians (a token Jew and a token black notwhithstanding) can hardly be perceived as non-communal.

4. Well, I guess, it is hard for me to be more explicit on why one could want to join Hadash (or to stay as far away from Israel as possible, in order to avoid joining Hadash, as is my case). To make it very plain: I do not like the ispravnik parties. More generally: I dislike nation states.

5. Meretz is a Zionist party.

I guess, I have been clear, haven´t I?

This is an objectively false statement. With your superior intellect I hope you can figure out why.

All I noted was the fact that the bolded statement was objectively false. Now that you are changing your argument, I must assume that you concur.

I do not concur, and I do not change my argument. They all, as you say, at the very least, reconciled themselves to the fact that what they really wanted was their own ispravnik. I do not like that in the least.

[ag]

Ah -- a fantastic example of an actual ispravnik, of the sort Zionists have been striving -- thankfully, largely successfully -- to liberate Jews from since Herzl first put pen to paper.

While Gen. Dragunsky was, obviously, a lot braver in battle than in peace, whose beard has he cut, exactly?

[ag]

Do you really think the Communists would refrain from cutting beards, or govern more justly than these "ispravniks"?

Which communists? You seem to ignore a very crucial distinction here.

[ag]

1. In my idiolect I use ispravnik to mean "the guy who cuts Jewish beards". I admit, I do not even pretend to use it in a historic context. Try to abstract from the "historic context" and you will, hopefully, figure out what I mean.

2. As you can, probably, figure out, I have a problem considering any Zionist party "bicommunal".

3. The reason, of course, is, that, while I share with most of my Jewish brethren the fascination with Jewish history, I disagree on the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from it. Whereas I get from history the distaste to the figure of the ispravnik, Zionists merely objected to the ispravnik not being Jewish. I find that objection to be inadequate.

3a. Well, clearly, a party that these days, at the present level of diversity of US population, is represented in Congress almost exclusively by White Christians (a token Jew and a token black notwhithstanding) can hardly be perceived as non-communal.

4. Well, I guess, it is hard for me to be more explicit on why one could want to join Hadash (or to stay as far away from Israel as possible, in order to avoid joining Hadash, as is my case). To make it very plain: I do not like the ispravnik parties. More generally: I dislike nation states.

5. Meretz is a Zionist party.

I guess, I have been clear, haven´t I?

This is an objectively false statement. With your superior intellect I hope you can figure out why.

All I noted was the fact that the bolded statement was objectively false. Now that you are changing your argument, I must assume that you concur.

I do not concur, and I do not change my argument. They all, as you say, at the very least, reconciled themselves to the fact that what they really wanted was their own ispravnik. I do not like that in the least.

I repeat, look at Einstein's own statements, and you can see for yourself that it is an objectively false statement.

Our friend Vosem here would object to saying that some Communists long ago were not vurdalacs, by pointing out that what matters is the actual, implemented Communism. Einstein, whatever his ideas were, has nothing to do with actual implementation of the Zionist idea. May be, somewhere in another universe, there would exist a non-ispravnik state of Israel. But we only have one empirically observed implementation to consider.

[ag]

What party do you suppport in Mexico that denies Mexico being a state established for Mexicans?

Any party that considers me a Mexican, even though I was born in Russia, speak atrocious Spanish, look alien from the distance of 2 km, and do not know what one does in Church.

[ag]

How are you going to avoid ispravniks without having a national homeland?

I thought they figured this out in the country to which you swore allegiance - which, I understand, was not Israel.

[ag]

On the contrary -- the history of the United States begins as one of religious minorities fleeing persecution (and ispravniks) to set up their own state elsewhere where they can govern themselves.

They did not need a nation-state - still less, a theocracy, to do that.

[ag]

In that quote, I meant the Israeli ones who are part of the party "Hadash", but it doesn't particularly matter; it could apply to any country I can think of with a prominent Communist party off the top of my head.

I see no evidence they would be any worse than any random collection of people pulled of the street.