Israel General Election Thread: March 17 2015

[ag]

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

This is the most horrible thing you have said so far.

[ag]

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).

Being a Jew means being a minority. When they became a majority, they stopped being Jews.

[ag]

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.

What does Zionism have to do with human rights (except in the breach, of course)?

[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.

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.

This would be perfectly well and good, however I am not Vosem, and thus, I do not agree with his premise. Though in one small way he was right- if this were accurate, the fact that communism has chalked up more failures than Zionism (many to just one) would lend credence to the idea that communism is a worse ideology to support than Zionism. (Note that I am not making this assertion, so you do not have to waste a post responding).

And you are also ignoring the fact that Einstein wasn't a starry-eyed intellectual, he was one of the prime movers behind the Zionist movement. The fact that Mapam, whose ideology would have been most in line Einstein, got the second largest number of seats in the first Knesset, is fairly illuminating.

[MalaspinaGold]

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).

Being a Jew means being a minority. When they became a majority, they stopped being Jews.

This is an opinion. Can you substantiate it?

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.

What does Zionism has to do with human rights (except in the breach, of course)?

Are you arguing that Zionists can't be in favor of human rights?

[ag]

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).

Being a Jew means being a minority. When they became a majority, they stopped being Jews.

This is an opinion. Can you substantiate it?

That is a matter of my personal self-identification.

[ag]

Are you arguing that Zionists can't be in favor of human rights?

No. Just that the two things are entirely orthogonal to one another.

[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.

This would be perfectly well and good, however I am not Vosem, and thus, I do not agree with his premise. Though in one small way he was right- if this were accurate, the fact that communism has chalked up more failures than Zionism (many to just one) would lend credence to the idea that communism is a worse ideology to support than Zionism. (Note that I am not making this assertion, so you do not have to waste a post responding).

And you are also ignoring the fact that Einstein wasn't a starry-eyed intellectual, he was one of the prime movers behind the Zionist movement. The fact that Mapam, whose ideology would have been most in line Einstein, got the second largest number of seats in the first Knesset, is fairly illuminating.

I am ignoring - because, as I said many times, I do not care. Einstein was great not because anything he did about the State of Israel - nor did he do that much about the State of Israel, except lending it his name.  Then, again, they say Einstein's recommendation letters were pretty useless for job search: he gave too many of those. I would not base myself too much in this case on another recommendation letter.

[Vosem]

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.

It's the other way around -- firstly, they tried to make do without a nation-state, and what ended up happening is the ispravniks followed them across the ocean. Only once they finally established one, in the American Revolution, did they free themselves.

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.

I see no evidence in Israeli elections that the median person pulled off the street would have an ideology so horrible.

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?

They are minority parties -- they have not yet managed to cut many beards. It is that they shout, and loudly, for oppression.

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.

Of course, you understand that UTJ does try to impose their lifestyle on those around them through small battles over lifestyle (by trying to regulate where people sit in buses, or what it is women can wear outside).

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

This is the most horrible thing you have said so far.

The average Israeli, be they Arab or Jewish, has the fantastic opportunity of living out his life not worrying that rival militias will kill him, or that he will need to protect his family from them. This is not the case in some of Israel's neighbors. You seemed to be implying that it was also not the case in the State of Israel.

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.

What does Zionism have to do with human rights (except in the breach, of course)?

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

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).

Being a Jew means being a minority. When they became a majority, they stopped being Jews.

This is the most horrible thing you've said so far. By what right do you tell someone they forfeit their ethnic identity by living somewhere, or consign a people to the status of an eternal minority? It's a shame "Israeli" isn't a race, because if it was I would know what to call your beliefs.

[Vosem]

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.

Not only is that not what I think, I've spoken to the contrary in this very thread:

There is a difference, morally, between being a communist in 1915 (when the ideology was completely untested) or even 1950 (when it's results were still not widely known) and being a communist in 2015, when what results from the adoption of the ideology is common knowledge around the world.

...

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.

You can start looking for one by reading the present State of Israel's Wikipedia article.

[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.

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.

This would be perfectly well and good, however I am not Vosem, and thus, I do not agree with his premise. Though in one small way he was right- if this were accurate, the fact that communism has chalked up more failures than Zionism (many to just one) would lend credence to the idea that communism is a worse ideology to support than Zionism. (Note that I am not making this assertion, so you do not have to waste a post responding).

And you are also ignoring the fact that Einstein wasn't a starry-eyed intellectual, he was one of the prime movers behind the Zionist movement. The fact that Mapam, whose ideology would have been most in line Einstein, got the second largest number of seats in the first Knesset, is fairly illuminating.

I am ignoring - because, as I said many times, I do not care. Einstein was great not because anything he did about the State of Israel - nor did he do that much about the State of Israel, except lending it his name.  Then, again, they say Einstein's recommendation letters were pretty useless for job search: he gave too many of those. I would not base myself too much in this case on another recommendation letter.

You are quite missing the point. I asked you to compare Einstein's views on Israel-Palestine and square that with him being an active Zionist (should you decide to ever look into this, which I highly recommend, I would highly suggest looking into the Einstein-Weizmann tour of New York city- fascinating material). Once you get out of this view that all Einstein did was write recommendations, the sooner you will become acquainted with reality.

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).

Being a Jew means being a minority. When they became a majority, they stopped being Jews.

This is an opinion. Can you substantiate it?

That is a matter of my personal self-identification.

You are entitled to think what you want. Those who thinks only Zionists can be Jews are entitled to think what they want. Neither view has any inkling of support outside of pathos. Just something to consider.

[ag]

This is the most horrible thing you've said so far. By what right do you tell someone they forfeit their ethnic identity by living somewhere, or consign a people to the status of an eternal minority? It's a shame "Israeli" isn't a race, because if it was I would know what to call your beliefs.

"Israeli" is a "race", as far as I am concerned - an "ethnic group", to be more precise, or a "people". Have nothing against them, as long as they do not pretend to be Jews.

[ag]

You are entitled to think what you want. Those who thinks only Zionists can be Jews are entitled to think what they want. Neither view has any inkling of support outside of pathos. Just something to consider.

You are absolutely right. They do not want to have anything to do with me, I do not want to have anything to do with them, so, in fact, we have a perfect coincidence of wants - no trouble whatsoever between me and proper Israeli nationalists. It is those inbetween that we all have a problem with.

[ag]

You can start looking for one by reading the present State of Israel's Wikipedia article.

And, what is it that I would find there?

[MalaspinaGold]

You are entitled to think what you want. Those who thinks only Zionists can be Jews are entitled to think what they want. Neither view has any inkling of support outside of pathos. Just something to consider.

You are absolutely right. They do not want to have anything to do with me, I do not want to have anything to do with them, so, in fact, we have a perfect coincidence of wants - no trouble whatsoever between me and proper Israeli nationalists. It is those inbetween that we all have a problem with.

In that case I, as a proud member of the in-between vote to kick you all off the communal boat. Problem solved.

[ag]

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

[ag]

You are entitled to think what you want. Those who thinks only Zionists can be Jews are entitled to think what they want. Neither view has any inkling of support outside of pathos. Just something to consider.

You are absolutely right. They do not want to have anything to do with me, I do not want to have anything to do with them, so, in fact, we have a perfect coincidence of wants - no trouble whatsoever between me and proper Israeli nationalists. It is those inbetween that we all have a problem with.

In that case I, as a proud member of the in-between vote to kick you all off the communal boat. Problem solved.

Perfect. And we shall just acknowledge that instead of one Jewish people there are a few dozens. That is exactly what I want.

[ag]

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.

[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?

[ag]

This is the most horrible thing you've said so far. By what right do you tell someone they forfeit their ethnic identity by living somewhere, or consign a people to the status of an eternal minority? It's a shame "Israeli" isn't a race, because if it was I would know what to call your beliefs.

Let me be clear. I do not care how anybody else defines Jewishness. I have my own definition of it. In Israel, Arabs are the Jews and the Jews are the ispravniks. That is all.

[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.

[ag]

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.

[ag]

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.

If anything, there is a lot of tension between patriotism and liberty. Hard to reconcile, in fact.

[Vosem]

This is the most horrible thing you've said so far. By what right do you tell someone they forfeit their ethnic identity by living somewhere, or consign a people to the status of an eternal minority? It's a shame "Israeli" isn't a race, because if it was I would know what to call your beliefs.

"Israeli" is a "race", as far as I am concerned - an "ethnic group", to be more precise, or a "people". Have nothing against them, as long as they do not pretend to be Jews.

But they are Jews -- or, at least, some 80% of them are. Their ancestors have been through all the same tribulations and trials as yours.

You are entitled to think what you want. Those who thinks only Zionists can be Jews are entitled to think what they want. Neither view has any inkling of support outside of pathos. Just something to consider.

You are absolutely right. They do not want to have anything to do with me, I do not want to have anything to do with them, so, in fact, we have a perfect coincidence of wants - no trouble whatsoever between me and proper Israeli nationalists.

It's completely the opposite -- you're invited to join them at any time, regardless of what opinions you might've held beforehand.

It is those inbetween that we all have a problem with.

Those between you and proper Israeli nationalists? I must confess I can't imagine the two of you plotted on the same line, so I don't know what comes between you.

You can start looking for one by reading the present State of Israel's Wikipedia article.

And, what is it that I would find there?

You would read about a democratic state, with a Jewish majority and an Arab minority, that has a long record of treating all of its citizens as equal under the law (though it is defined as a state for the majority, as many states are), which is particularly impressive when you consider the atrocious records of its neighbors. You would also read about a state that has been attacked, for the identity ("race", if you will) of its people, time and time again, and then been blamed for defending itself -- the way, for instance, a child who finally snaps and breaks the schoolyard bully's arm will be suspended, not the bully.

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

You won't like them once you hand them razors.

You are entitled to think what you want. Those who thinks only Zionists can be Jews are entitled to think what they want. Neither view has any inkling of support outside of pathos. Just something to consider.

You are absolutely right. They do not want to have anything to do with me, I do not want to have anything to do with them, so, in fact, we have a perfect coincidence of wants - no trouble whatsoever between me and proper Israeli nationalists. It is those inbetween that we all have a problem with.

In that case I, as a proud member of the in-between vote to kick you all off the communal boat. Problem solved.

Perfect. And we shall just acknowledge that instead of one Jewish people there are a few dozens. That is exactly what I want.

There are, in fact, many dozens of subdivisions of Jewish people, no one group more Jewish than any other, but that does not mean "Jewish" as a category is any less legitimate.

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.

Supporting human rights is incompatible with opposing the notion of people getting a homeland in which they are free from ispravniks, prejudice, and dictatorship, and supporting that these things be torn down.

This is the most horrible thing you've said so far. By what right do you tell someone they forfeit their ethnic identity by living somewhere, or consign a people to the status of an eternal minority? It's a shame "Israeli" isn't a race, because if it was I would know what to call your beliefs.

Let me be clear. I do not care how anybody else defines Jewishness. I have my own definition of it. In Israel, Arabs are the Jews and the Jews are the ispravniks. That is all.

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

[ag]

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!