Israel General Election Thread: March 17 2015

[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.

[MalaspinaGold]

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

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.

[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.

[MalaspinaGold]

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.

He himself never moved to Israel because he was happy living in Princeton, with a nice job that allowed him to do what he wanted. Not for any reason having to do with Ispravniks, else he would not have been one of the prime movers in raising money for those who did move there.

[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.

[Vosem]

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.

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

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

I figured it out, but this is a ridiculous position, since without Zionism your "bicommunalism" would not even be possible.

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.

On the contrary -- it is Zionism that has freed Jews around the world from the figure of the ispravnik, in Russia, across Europe, and in North Africa, by permitting them a place to go when the depredations become too much.

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.

The point of the post (which I don't think you missed) is that, because of community solidarity in minority communities, bicommunalism the way you define it can be virtually impossible to achieve, and leave you in the unenviable position of supporting very extremist parties because of it. The Republican Party is not a threat to Jews and blacks, even though they largely support its opponents. While there is a lot more bad blood in Israel, Likud is not much of a threat to Israeli Arabs either (who are, in fact, exempt from the draft -- it's probably more of a threat to your typical Israeli Jew).

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.

Then refrain from supporting ispravnik parties (the way you define them), which are Balad, Hadash, and the UAL at the one end, and Shas, UTJ, and Yahad at the other.

More generally: I dislike nation states.

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

5. Meretz is a Zionist party.

You won't catch me defending Meretz (which, unlike Hadash's token historical leftovers, is an actual bicommunal party, though still largely majority Jewish) too often, but it is precisely Meretz's Zionism and acknowledgement of human rights that make it a democratic party acceptable in a democratic society.

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

You have certainly been repetitive, but you've been as clear as mud.

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

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

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

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.

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

How is that relevant? Israel isn't Lebanon or Syria.

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

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.

[MalaspinaGold]

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.

It should also be noted that Mapam initially supported a binational state, but eventually reconciled itself with a Jewish state. As a matter of fact, so did Einstein.

One more thing- if you consider token minorities to not be evidence of bicommunalism, then the fact that consistently MK Khenin was the only Jew placed on the Hadash list, coupled with the fact that 90% of Hadash voters are Arab, I find it very hard to consider Hadash itself to be bicommunal. And if Hadash is bicommunal, then you have yet to show how for instance Meretz (with an Arab elected to the number 3 spot) is not bicommunal. And as can be shown above "muh Zionism" is not an adequate excuse. And while you might have a point that the vast majority of Arabs in Israel are not Zionist, the vast majority of Jews are.

[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.

[MalaspinaGold]

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

[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?

[MalaspinaGold]

While it is admirable that Hadash would include a second member of the "other" in the top seven, that should be easier to do when the "other" is 80% of the population, rather than when the "other" is 20%. As such, the achievement is less impressive.

Back on topic, this happened:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.645114
Marzel should be sitting in jail right now.

[MalaspinaGold]

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.

[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.

[Vosem]

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,

This is true -- General Dragunsky, too, was not without redeeming qualities.

whose beard has he cut, exactly?

The Jews who were not allowed to leave the Soviet Union for a friendlier sky (as in Israel or the United States), or, like Natan Sharansky, were imprisoned for their Zionism. By endorsing such things, he gave them the veneer of acceptability.

Back on topic, this happened:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.645114
Marzel should be sitting in jail right now.

Agreed (though it doesn't, for me, make Zoabi a more sympathetic figure).

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.

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.

[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.

[ag]

Then refrain from supporting ispravnik parties (the way you define them), which are Balad, Hadash, and the UAL at the one end, and Shas, UTJ, and Yahad at the other.
 

Whose beards have they cut?

Actually, I will be a lot more in sympathy with, say, UTJ than with Likud.  Yes, they are medeival religious fanatics - but they never pretended to be anything else. But, then, they are what Jews were all these centuries of persecution. They want to maintain that lifestyle our ancestors died for - it is their choice. Of course, I would object to them imposing their lifestyle on me (or anybody else). But I have no problem supporting their desire to live their way. In particular, I find it horrifying that in Israel it is considered somehow "modern" or "progressive" to try to force these guys to serve in the army. As a proud draft dodger myself, I really find that attrocious. And attrociously anti-Jewish.