Israel General Election Thread: March 17 2015

[MalaspinaGold]

They are minority parties -- they have not yet managed to cut many beards.

And that is EXACTLY what I like about them. If they were majority parties, I would choose somebody else

More likely, there would be 4: the Haredim, the racists, the rabid anti-Zionists, and everyone else. I am fairly confident which would include the majority of the Jewish people, and thus would get priority over the word.

By the way, this has already been done before, in the last century. However, they called themselves Bundists. Would you care to restart the movement?

[MalaspinaGold]

It takes an astonishing amount of doublethink to oppose Zionism but support human rights.

It takes a complete ignorance of both the notions of Zionism and of human rights to think there is anything whatsoever conceptually realting the two.

In the same way there is nothing relating, say patriotism and liberty for instance. Or any two similarly meaningless words.

[MalaspinaGold]

By the way, this has already been done before, in the last century. However, they called themselves Bundists. Would you care to restart the movement?

I have the same problem with this as with religion. If I believed in God, I would have been a rabbi. If I were a Marxist, I might have gone for the Bund. Though, of course, as far as I am concerned, the Bundists suffered from the same problem as the Zionists: they wanted "an autonomy in the affairs of the Jewish proletariat". And I do not want that.

Bundism and not Marxism are not the same. Quite the opposite in fact.

[MalaspinaGold]

More likely, there would be 4: the Haredim, the racists, the rabid anti-Zionists, and everyone else. I am fairly confident which would include the majority of the Jewish people, and thus would get priority over the word.

Many, many more. Sefardim, Ashkenazim, Russians, Georgians, atheists, Upper Eastsiders, etc. etc. The more the merrier!

The difference is that the Sefardi will not call the Ashkenazi any less of a Jew, nor will the Upper Eastsider to the Ethiopian, nor the Russian to the atheist. Hence they are all part of the "everyone else" category.

[MalaspinaGold]

By the way, this has already been done before, in the last century. However, they called themselves Bundists. Would you care to restart the movement?

I have the same problem with this as with religion. If I believed in God, I would have been a rabbi. If I were a Marxist, I might have gone for the Bund. Though, of course, as far as I am concerned, the Bundists suffered from the same problem as the Zionists: they wanted "an autonomy in the affairs of the Jewish proletariat". And I do not want that.

Bundism and not Marxism are not the same. Quite the opposite in fact.

I think you should read up on history here. Specifically, the 2nd congress of RSDLP

There is a difference of course. The Marxists mandated strict asimilation. The Bundists discouraged it.

Why would you ever support a party like Hadash then? In the last Knesset, 25% of its delegation were ispravniks.

Isrpavnik, like being - or not - in a majority, is a state of mind. Comrade Khenin, is, obviously, Jewish.

Care to define what a majority state of mind is? Based on the latest poll numbers, the Zionist left in Israel is obviously Jewish.

[MalaspinaGold]

More likely, there would be 4: the Haredim, the racists, the rabid anti-Zionists, and everyone else. I am fairly confident which would include the majority of the Jewish people, and thus would get priority over the word.

Many, many more. Sefardim, Ashkenazim, Russians, Georgians, atheists, Upper Eastsiders, etc. etc. The more the merrier!

The difference is that the Sefardi will not call the Ashkenazi any less of a Jew, nor will the Upper Eastsider to the Ethiopian, nor the Russian to the atheist. Hence they are all part of the "everyone else" category.

May be - or may be not. Today one may say one thing - tomorrow, something quite different

And once they do, we have yet another schism.

[MalaspinaGold]

You dodge the point. That by your own definition, they are Jewish.

By the way, are the Ethiopians Jewish, because they are also a minority in Israel? I need to figure out exactly how much of a SJW you are.

[MalaspinaGold]

So you are saying that the Zionist left is Jewish. And that also the Ethiopians are Jewish? Does this extend to the Russian Jews also?

[MalaspinaGold]

Question: You are opposed to a Jewish state, a Jewish state in Holy Land (like the Montreal Hasidics) or just opposed to religion-based states?

Great question.

1. I think the original Zionist idea was harebrained. If some Jews wanted to be a part of a majority they always could assimilate. What made the Jewish community unique was precisely its perseverence in the Diaspora. The Zionists despised what really made Jews Jewish in my eyes, so they get no sympathy from me.

2. Now, that was then. Right now we have a fact of the existence of the State of Israel. I do not oppose the State of Israel any more than I would oppose the State of Papua New Guinea. What I oppose is the pretensions of - some - of that state's representatives to speak in the name of the Jews in general. They have no more right to speak in my name than - nor do I have any more to do with them than with - Papua New Guinea.

3. I do not particularly like religion-based (or, for that matter, nation-based) states, but I realize they exist and will exist for a long time to come. Do not have any problem with that, really. As long as they do not try to imply that I somehow should have any sort of allegiance to them.

Ah, but this was not always an option. And even if it became an option at some point, doesn't mean it would stay that way.

Well, I have no problem with Israeli-born guys, who love their country, find it self-sufficient, identify with their native Hebrew - and do not want to bother about the Russians, etc. As long as they consider the Zionist project done with and would view me (if I were to come to Israel) as no different from a Thai migrant (as long, of coruse, they do not mind the Thai migrants), I am fine with them. In other words, I what I object to is Israel being called a Jewish state - because I object to the pretence Jews need a state. I do not mind Israeli Jews having their state, though.

As long as they do not care about me any more than they care about my nauatl-speakign compatriots, I do not mind.

So long as your Nahuatl speaking companions aren't persecuting you, I don't see why they should care that much about you either. As was noted, this has not always been the case, unfortunately. And in this case, care is perfectly justifiable.

[MalaspinaGold]

Your Nahuatl speaking comrades are in which case welcome to secede from Mexico.

And no, persecution is not a Jewish monopoly. Persecution of Jews could be considered one however.

[MalaspinaGold]

No Jew at that time would've said that what made Jews unique was their status as a minority -- it was their unique traditions and values, which they were trying (successfully) to protect.

Which traditions and values? The Yiddish and other Diaspora traditions that Zionists despised? Or the religious traditions that the founders of the state did not care about a yota?

They didn't despise the former. It was a natural byproduct of trying to scrub off the Europeanness from them. Which is perfectly natural, considering the circumstances.

[MalaspinaGold]

One could ask very well why they adopted Ladino instead- after all, we're not only talking about lily-white Jews here.

Hebrew would quite naturally weave a much closer fabric. I shudder to think of Arye Deri conversing in Yiddish, and Lieberman responding in Ladino. It would be chaos!

[MalaspinaGold]

Yes, in that it is Jews who are being persecuted, rather than Gypsies.

[MalaspinaGold]

One could ask very well why they adopted Ladino instead- after all, we're not only talking about lily-white Jews here.

Hebrew would quite naturally weave a much closer fabric. I shudder to think of Arye Deri conversing in Yiddish, and Lieberman responding in Ladino. It would be chaos!

They did not adopt Ladino - Ladino is pretty much dead, they killed it as well.

And, of course, their objective was to "weave a fabric" where I see no need of having done so. To "weave" that "fabric" they sacrificed what was their tradition, and had multiple traditions assimilated into one - the one they invented. So, no, they did not care about preserving Jewish traditions: they wanted to create the new traditions.

I still shudder when I hear that falafel is, somehow, "Jewish food". Jewish food is gefilte fish and farshmak on bagel. That is what my great grandmother made. And don't give me any of that bullshoot about falafel (I hate it).

Why you being racist against sephardim?

Yes, in that it is Jews who are being persecuted, rather than Gypsies.

And does this distinction - at all - matter?

What do you mean "does it matter"? If you are asking if one is worse than the other, no. If you are asking whether a solution for one can be used as a solution for the other, I am skeptical. The nomadic nature of Gypsies makes it hard for them to establish a state- same as the Bedouin.

[MalaspinaGold]

One could ask very well why they adopted Ladino instead- after all, we're not only talking about lily-white Jews here.

Hebrew would quite naturally weave a much closer fabric. I shudder to think of Arye Deri conversing in Yiddish, and Lieberman responding in Ladino. It would be chaos!

They did not adopt Ladino - Ladino is pretty much dead, they killed it as well.

And, of course, their objective was to "weave a fabric" where I see no need of having done so. To "weave" that "fabric" they sacrificed what was their tradition, and had multiple traditions assimilated into one - the one they invented. So, no, they did not care about preserving Jewish traditions: they wanted to create the new traditions.

I still shudder when I hear that falafel is, somehow, "Jewish food". Jewish food is gefilte fish and farshmak on bagel. That is what my great grandmother made. And don't give me any of that bullshoot about falafel (I hate it).

The point is that everyone knowing two languages (yes, I think Israelis should learn Arabic) is hard enough, trying to throw Yiddish in, and then Ladino to satisfy the Sephardim, and Amharic to satisfy the Ethiopians, would be chaos.

[MalaspinaGold]

One could ask very well why they adopted Ladino instead- after all, we're not only talking about lily-white Jews here.

Hebrew would quite naturally weave a much closer fabric. I shudder to think of Arye Deri conversing in Yiddish, and Lieberman responding in Ladino. It would be chaos!

They did not adopt Ladino - Ladino is pretty much dead, they killed it as well.

And, of course, their objective was to "weave a fabric" where I see no need of having done so. To "weave" that "fabric" they sacrificed what was their tradition, and had multiple traditions assimilated into one - the one they invented. So, no, they did not care about preserving Jewish traditions: they wanted to create the new traditions.

I still shudder when I hear that falafel is, somehow, "Jewish food". Jewish food is gefilte fish and farshmak on bagel. That is what my great grandmother made. And don't give me any of that bullshoot about falafel (I hate it).

The point is that everyone knowing two languages (yes, I think Israelis should learn Arabic) is hard enough, trying to throw Yiddish in, and then Ladino to satisfy the Sephardim, and Amharic to satisfy the Ethiopians, would be chaos.

Well, if you invent an objective and sacrifice everything else for it, I see your point. But somebody here was saying that early Zionists cared about preserving Jewish traditions - whereas they murdered them.

Traditions get created and destroyed all the time. I have some European Jewish friends- none of them speak Yiddish. I highly doubt Yiddish would remain relevant, whether or not Israel was founded.

[MalaspinaGold]

Why you being racist against sephardim?

Falafel is no more "sephardic" then it is ashkenazic (they did not eat falafel in Spain, I am pretty sure - not sure about Salonika). In any case, the current "Israeli falafel" is no different from its Palestinian variety - nobody would associate it with Jews a century ago. 

And, of ocurse, my kind of Jews have a lot more in common with Poles than with the Sephardim culturally and gastronomically. Are you surprized?

Salonika certainly. Turkey almost certainly. Quite likely in the Mahgreb, which is Sephardic. This of course completely ignores the Mizrachi Jews.

And I am not surprised. However your statement that Jewish food means gefilte fish, etc. is not the same thing.

[MalaspinaGold]

One could ask very well why they adopted Ladino instead- after all, we're not only talking about lily-white Jews here.

Hebrew would quite naturally weave a much closer fabric. I shudder to think of Arye Deri conversing in Yiddish, and Lieberman responding in Ladino. It would be chaos!

They did not adopt Ladino - Ladino is pretty much dead, they killed it as well.

And, of course, their objective was to "weave a fabric" where I see no need of having done so. To "weave" that "fabric" they sacrificed what was their tradition, and had multiple traditions assimilated into one - the one they invented. So, no, they did not care about preserving Jewish traditions: they wanted to create the new traditions.

I still shudder when I hear that falafel is, somehow, "Jewish food". Jewish food is gefilte fish and farshmak on bagel. That is what my great grandmother made. And don't give me any of that bullshoot about falafel (I hate it).

The point is that everyone knowing two languages (yes, I think Israelis should learn Arabic) is hard enough, trying to throw Yiddish in, and then Ladino to satisfy the Sephardim, and Amharic to satisfy the Ethiopians, would be chaos.

Well, if you invent an objective and sacrifice everything else for it, I see your point. But somebody here was saying that early Zionists cared about preserving Jewish traditions - whereas they murdered them.

Traditions get created and destroyed all the time. I have some European Jewish friends- none of them speak Yiddish. I highly doubt Yiddish would remain relevant, whether or not Israel was founded.

Well, but, at least, you have, it seems, agreed, that early Zionists couldn´t give a frock about the traditions, except the "traditions" they themselves invented. So, clearly, it was not a matter of preserving traditions that prevented them from assimilating into another society.

As for Yiddish... Hitler, of course, took care of the European Yiddishkeit. Zionists provided a coup de grace. Well, perhaps if the dead man were not murdered, he would have died by now. Quite likely in fact. So, should the murderer go free? Or are you suggesting it was a mercy killing?

This is silly. correlation does not imply causation. The early Israeli leaders discouraged use of Yiddish in Israel. However they had no control over Jews in Europe. If Yiddish disappeared in Europe, it is not because of Ben-Gurion.

[MalaspinaGold]

Why you being racist against sephardim?

Falafel is no more "sephardic" then it is ashkenazic (they did not eat falafel in Spain, I am pretty sure - not sure about Salonika). In any case, the current "Israeli falafel" is no different from its Palestinian variety - nobody would associate it with Jews a century ago. 

And, of ocurse, my kind of Jews have a lot more in common with Poles than with the Sephardim culturally and gastronomically. Are you surprized?

Salonika certainly. Turkey almost certainly. Quite likely in the Mahgreb, which is Sephardic. This of course completely ignores the Mizrachi Jews.

And I am not surprised. However your statement that Jewish food means gefilte fish, etc. is not the same thing.

Well, we have agreed that we have different notions of Jewishness. Yes, as far as I am concerned, Sephardim are no different from any other Moroccans And I do love the proper Moroccan food (never saw them eating much falafel, though).

Most Jews throughout history would disagree with you on this point.

[MalaspinaGold]

This is silly. correlation does not imply causation. The early Israeli leaders discouraged use of Yiddish in Israel. However they had no control over Jews in Europe. If Yiddish disappeared in Europe, it is not because of Ben-Gurion.

They not merely encouraged the use of Hebrew: they openly despised the use of Yiddish. Given the enfeebled state of Yiddishkeit post-Holocaust, the strong new Zionist culture seemed attractive, so Yiddish fizzled: Hitler won their battle for them, though, of course, I have no doubt that they were not at all happy about the manner their victory came about.

It is not, really, that I blame Ben Gurion - I do not. He was perfectly in his right to do what he did, invent the mythology he did, use the opportunities that came up. But I do object to the idea that Ben Gurion was, somehow, preserving Jewish traditions: he invented the Israeli traditions instead.

Created Israeli traditions, yes, which filtered into Diaspora communities to become Jewish traditions.

This is silly. correlation does not imply causation. The early Israeli leaders discouraged use of Yiddish in Israel. However they had no control over Jews in Europe. If Yiddish disappeared in Europe, it is not because of Ben-Gurion.

They not merely encouraged the use of Hebrew: they openly despised the use of Yiddish. Given the enfeebled state of Yiddishkeit post-Holocaust, the strong new Zionist culture seemed attractive, so Yiddish fizzled: Hitler won their battle for them, though, of course, I have no doubt that they were not at all happy about the manner their victory came about.

It is not, really, that I blame Ben Gurion - I do not. He was perfectly in his right to do what he did, invent the mythology he did, use the opportunities that came up. But I do object to the idea that Ben Gurion was, somehow, preserving Jewish traditions: he invented the Israeli traditions instead.

Most Rabbis consider Karaites to be Halakhically Jewish, and they are classified as Jewish in Israel. The only person who did not consider them Jewish was Hitler.

And why are you pretending Mizrachi/Sephardi Jews don't exist? If they are Jews, and considered Falafel a Jewish food, then it's a Jewish food. Get over it, not all Jews are Ashkenazi.

[MalaspinaGold]

So an unfortunate episode occurred yesterday:
Yesterday there was talk that ZU and Meretz were preparing to annul their surplus vote agreement. If it happened, ZU would have formed a new one with Yesh Atid, and Meretz will form one with the Joint List. Yesh Atid, ZU, Meretz support the idea, as well as Hadash. However Raam and Balad opposed it because they didn't want to be associated with a Zionist party. And Odeh was not able to drum up support within the list, so it didn't happen. If the right gets an extra seat this year, it may well be due to Raam and Balad's intransigence.

Since I don't know much about it other than what was reported n Haaretz, I was wondering if our resident Meretz activist, hnv1, could weigh in.

[MalaspinaGold]

Do you think there will be any repercussions for the Joint List? It seems reminiscent of the Ohana scandal- popular leader is selected to appeal to a wider audience, only to have the backbenchers revolt when he does that. I can imagine a lot of Hadash activists (especially Jews) are incensed. I would be shocked if this costed them a mandate though.

Also, what do you mean by binded?

[MalaspinaGold]

This is probably wishful thinking but is there any chance that if the Joint List collapses, Odeh decides to join forces with Meretz? In all honesty I don't know what separates the two.

[MalaspinaGold]

So an unfortunate episode occurred yesterday:
Yesterday there was talk that ZU and Meretz were preparing to annul their surplus vote agreement. If it happened, ZU would have formed a new one with Yesh Atid, and Meretz will form one with the Joint List. Yesh Atid, ZU, Meretz support the idea, as well as Hadash. However Raam and Balad opposed it because they didn't want to be associated with a Zionist party. And Odeh was not able to drum up support within the list, so it didn't happen. If the right gets an extra seat this year, it may well be due to Raam and Balad's intransigence.

Since I don't know much about it other than what was reported n Haaretz, I was wondering if our resident Meretz activist, hnv1, could weigh in.

What is a "surplus vote agreement"?

Two parties can sign an agreement so that after votes are allocated, their combined surplus votes are pooled, and if the total is greater than the number needed for one seat, that seat will be allocated to the party with more surplus votes within the agreement.

EX: if parties A and B are in a surplus vote agreement, and party A gets 170,000 votes, party B gets 160,000 votes, and the cutoff for a seat is 30,000 votes, party A will receive 5 seats, party B will receive 5 seats, the remainder (20,000 from A and 10,000 from B) will be combined resulting in an extra seat for party A.  Otherwise all 30,000 votes would be wasted.

This is probably wishful thinking but is there any chance that if the Joint List collapses, Odeh decides to join forces with Meretz? In all honesty I don't know what separates the two.

None whatsoever. They are very far apart.

Joint list will not collapse. Of course, it is quite likely that post-election the constituent parties resume their independent existence. But "joining" in any sense with Meretz is off limits. Except, possibly, temporarily for the next election - and then, again, for the same shotgun threshold reason as they are now joining with the Arabs.

I didn't make up this idea by myself. Noam Sheizaf was the one advocating for it (though he advocated Meretz joining the Joint List- that's not going to happen). But it would be a logical first step for Odeh to gain greater legitimacy- cut loose from the Islamists and the Nationalists and ally with another leftist party. Considering that he's trying to appeal to Jews while Meretz is trying to appeal to Arabs, it makes sense, depending on his end goal.

[MalaspinaGold]

What reform are we talking about? I think Lieberman may be loath to raise the threshold again, for obvious reasons.