Interesting Louis Theroux Doc on Ultra-Zionists

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Your thoughts?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1eph4q_bbc-louis-theroux-ultra-zionists-pdtv-xvid_tech

[DavidB.]

Haven't seen any documentaries on this, yet I'm well-versed in that specific subculture, having been to many of these places multiple times, so I'll probably watch this. I suspect I might know some people that are featured in this video, which could make things more interesting...

edit: I love how the word "ultra" has been used three times in the first three minutes already. Surely makes things more objective and stuff

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think it's fairly objective, from a a first watch. Theroux is a journalist more interested in humanistic motivations of people rather than overarching political machinations, so is well suited for some of the more curious aspects of the saga - the fruitless and surreal skirmishes between the border force and Arabs, the intriguing motivations of some of the principle characters etc.

[DavidB.]

Yeah, maybe I'm being too harsh already (though normally the use of "ultra" is a bad sign). Needless to say I'm very involved in all this stuff. Did much volunteering in many of these small, ideological communities (though not the real hilltop tent stuff, my support stops when people start disrespecting the army).

Judging by the first minutes it seems this documentary is basically about the interesting difference in perception of the situation of "the world" on the one hand, represented by the fairly neutral questions that Theroux asks - neutral because even if I vehemently disagree with the framework from which these questions might stem, I can't blame him for asking these questions, because he says what most Westerners think -, and the perception of the activist religious Zionist community on the other hand, which differ enormously. And that's interesting in and of itself. I really need to watch more of it to judge it, though.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Cool. If you do I watch, I'm intrigued on what you think of some of the more interesting people/events shows.

What are your feelings on Daniel, the Australian man affiliated with expanding more property into the Western Bank? Is he indirectly causing more tension to flare, or do you consider his task necessary.

Similarly, your thoughts on the hill-dwelling youth who promises to act in defiance of the Israeli government in support of a gReater Israel? Is he misguided, a a zealot or heroic in your eyes?

And, also, the American family living in highly disputed territory. I'll admit this part confused me most as I couldn't imagine putting my own hypothetical children in danger for (what strikes me as) an ideological agenda with no clear end.

There are also some weirdness gong on - the American Christiaj tourists making a spiritual pilgrimage to pick grapes,the downright surreal and almost quasi-ritualistic skirmishes between the armed forces and the Arabs etc.

[Ebowed]

Definitely don't write out a Louis documentary from the first few minutes.  I can't think of a single one that wasn't fascinating, this one included.

[DavidB.]

Okay. In danger of having a discussion about my views rather than about the documentary, I'll post my answer to your first questions, but people should feel free to entirely ignore me and talk about the documentary instead

It is quite interesting to see this documentary. I've been to so many of the places where Theroux went, that it's truly a trip down memory lane for me. First of all, I'd like to point out that Theroux's language is far from neutral, which is entirely logical given the fact that he's basically playing the "devil's advocate", but which influences one's view on the territorial and political situation. That's not "wrong" or "right", but it's good to be aware of.

What are your feelings on Daniel, the Australian man affiliated with expanding more property into the Western Bank? Is he indirectly causing more tension to flare, or do you consider his task necessary.

Daniel, the Australian guy, isn't involved with "expropriating people" in the West Bank (or in Judea and Samaria, as I call those areas), because apart from Hevron there are no shared Jewish/Arab places there. Some of the areas are under PA control and harbor Arab cities, others are under Israeli control and harbor Jewish villages and cities ("settlements"). The secret deals with Arabs/Jews moving in in the middle of the night things only happen in Jerusalem, specifically in the non-Jewish parts of the Old City and in parts of so-called "East Jerusalem": the American family with the children lives in such a neighborhood. I know quite some people who are into this thing.

Personally, I believe in a shared Israel. Arabs can already live in West Jerusalem and I see absolutely no reason why Jews shouldn't be living in East Jerusalem or the Muslim Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem, just as Arabs could live in "Jewish" areas. It is entirely normal for people to want to be among others of their own community, so self-imposed segregation is okay, but that shouldn't be caused by a law. You know, just as in the Netherlands and in the US People deliberately making transactions with each other, out of free will, is fine everywhere and it should be fine in the Old City as well.

Regarding these deals: Daniel's version of events obviously seems really shaky. Still, he at least tells a good part of the truth when it comes to the general situation (not relating to his specific deal). Jews are willing to pay a lot for an apartment in the Old City, for ideological reasons, and are often helped by foreign donors. This means that if you're Arab and you're selling your apartment, you want to sell it to a Jew. At the same time, however, there is enormous social pressure upon these people not to sell their property to Jews, because they obviously want to keep their neighborhood Muslim-only. That's a logical preference for them, but not something that should be supported by law, just as it wouldn't be okay for the Dutch government to make sure Dutch Moroccans couldn't move into a certain neighborhood. Anyway, this means that Arabs selling their place have to flee in the middle of the night and, indeed, often leave stuff behind, in secrecy - on the other hand, Jews moving in also have to do it silently, in the middle of the night.

Regarding the obvious problems in terms of ownership: it's always hard to judge. The Arab guy might have been telling a part of the truth (though color me sceptical - then again, I'm also extremely sceptical when Jews tell their part of the story, because in the Middle East "truth" seems to be an entirely different concept than in the West, for absolutely everybody) because there are instances in which things happen unlawfully, which I absolutely condemn. However, in my view, that doesn't render wrong or immoral the very idea of Jews moving into the Old City of Jerusalem. In the nineteenth century, Jews lived in many more places in the Old City. We were only forced out due to violence in the twenteeth century, and, of course, during the Independence War, when the area was occupied by Jordan. I see it as a very good thing if Jews move back into the Old City, also outside the Jewish Quarter, as long as things happen lawfully, which is most often the case.

Similarly, your thoughts on the hill-dwelling youth who promises to act in defiance of the Israeli government in support of a gReater Israel? Is he misguided, a a zealot or heroic in your eyes?

Then the hilltop youth. Yeah. Difficult. Let's firstly state that I absolutely oppose any government giving parts of Judea, Samaria, or Jerusalem away. Period. Obviously the state doesn't want much international trouble and "settlers" want to live in more and more places and they want to expand their village, so these people are "troublemakers" from the government's perspective. However, as I said, I believe in a shared Israel. I don't believe it would be okay for the US to say that Native Americans, the indigenous population, cannot live in their ancestral land, and if the international community would condemn Native Americans living in their own land it would be a disgrace. In my opinion, that is what is happening to Jews in Judea and Samaria. The people who ensure the Jewish presence in these areas, the people who build there, the people who live there and the people who defy the anti-Jewish consensus that Jews cannot live in their ancestral homeland are the heroes of our time, I think, and that's why I'm extremely proud in helping these communities during my holidays.

However, living in these lands comes with responsibility. As Theroux very rightfully said, the only reason that these people can live there is because of the fact that the army protects them. Jews who misbehave against the army should probably not be allowed to live in Judea and Samaria as long as the current tensions exist, and that's the problem with many of these hilltop people: they endanger their fellow Jews' lives, which is entirely unacceptable. Similarly, people who misbehave against Arabs in surrounding villages need to be sent out of the areas (however, there should also be much harder punishment for Arabs trying to hurt Jewish communities, which happens far more often for the simple reason that Arabs tend to see Jews as invaders whereas Jews simply want to live in these areas while generally not opposing Arab presence in the area, at least not in practical terms regarding here and now; ideology is an entirely different kind of thing).

Regarding the guy in the documentary: I find it very sad that he expresses his reason for being there in negative terms, though it is clear that he has lots of ("religious") sincere, positive reasons for being there. A Jew shouldn't be there because he opposes another Arab village. A Jew should be there because it's home, because it's where our ancestors lived, because it's the best place in the world for a Jew to live. I feel that this positive motivation is the reason to be there for most Jews living in the more ideological "settlements", though I'm not sure about the hilltop people. In regard to the guy's wish to stay there if the government leaves: it's unwise, but I understand it. I totally understand it. It would be excruciating to leave our homeland. The good thing: it won't happen anymore.

The specific thing with the hilltop people, a very tiny minority of "settlers" btw, is that many of them are a little crazy. Not talking about people in outposts in general, most of these are fine, but specifically talking about people in tents on hilltops. In general I'd see most Jews in the areas as heroic, but this guy, along with many his fellow hilltop people, falls into the category of misguided zealots, though I'm sure this is a good guy and I can probably relate to many of his beliefs (though there are definitely some nasties among them as well, who shouldn't be living there).

And, also, the American family living in highly disputed territory. I'll admit this part confused me most as I couldn't imagine putting my own hypothetical children in danger for (what strikes me as) an ideological agenda with no clear end.

Then the American family. Complicated. The thing is, regarding your remark that there is "no clear end"": there is actually a clear end for these people: the coming of Mashiach. The idea that "the end is near" and that we're living in historical times is an extremely positive and hopeful thought for many people (which is also why some of them must look crazy from a Western perspective, but that doesn't apply to most). It's something I believe in, but at the same time I'm more "down to earth" when it comes to the implications for these beliefs in people's real lives and to my own life.

I would definitely go living in an outpost in Judea and Samaria (in a community respecting the army, that is), but it would be remarkably harder for me to live in one of the 99%> Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem. I've been there quite some times. One time, I walked around until a guy stopped and told me to get into his car: the war was going on and he said it would be dangerous for me to walk around in that area, wearing a kippah. He took me to his place, in an apartment building right in the middle of an Arab-only neighborhood. It was a remarkable experience, quite similar to the circumstances under which the American family lives. People shouting at me on the street in front of the building, people shouting at me when I was at the rooftop. When one is walking around like that, one knows what one's ancestors felt when they were living in Poland and in Morocco, when people were shouting at them and throwing stones without major consequences, every single day. For some time, that's fine, but in the end it would probably drive me crazy. And it's unacceptable that this is happening in Israel, the Jewish homeland, where Jews and Arabs should be living together in peace - it's even more unacceptable to me that Jews living in these areas is seen as a crime outside Israel.

At the same time, it would be hard for me to bear these conditions, and that's why I have incredible respect for this family. Still, it's fine as a personal choice, but I feel people shouldn't do this to their children. It is actually dangerous, something might happen, and I want to be careful with my wording because I think these people are doing extremely important things in the story of our people, but I don't think it's wise to put not only yourself, but also your children at risk. So no, I wouldn't live in the most dangerous outposts or in East Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods with children.

[MalaspinaGold]

Just finished watching the film (and reading DavidB's analysis), and here are my thoughts.
1. My views towards settlers has become, if not friendlier, has become more complex, at least in part because I realized there is a connection to the land they have that is extremely strong. As noted by DavidB., many of these settlers do believe that we are living in a Messianic age and that their actions will bring forth the Messiah. Now as for me personally, as a secular Jew, I couldn't care less about the Old City, Hebron, etc., whether Jews live there or not. I believe the process of setting up the Jews as a nation again was and is far more important than what the shape and size of Israel should be. So, while I don't have any innate antipathy to settlers, I do see their Messianism as a threat, and can be epitomized by DavidB.'s quote "The good thing: it won't happen anymore. " This is quite frankly delusional, because the expulsion of Jews from the West Bank, indeed from Israel itself, could very easily happen. Of course the Arab countries couldn't do it, or even Iran, but should the US, or Europe decide to do so for whatever reason, and kick out the Jews, there's really nothing that Israel could do about it.

The other thing I'd like to note is the primary problem I see when people like DavidB talk about a "shared state", is that, while it may be shared between two peoples, one people gets to choose how to divide the spoils. And even if you're generous in how you divide the spoils, it won't bring satisfaction, because pure material benefit is not what they're after. And to think so is to make the mistake European liberals and the leaders of the Haskala made about the Jewish people back during the foundation of Zionism. Because what the Zionists  realized is that material benefit apportioned on an individual basis by a benevolent power (whether in the form of human rights, wealth, etc.) can be easily taken away, while permanent self-determination, even when coupled with fewer immediate material benefits , these are infinitely more permanent. Ultimately the only way "shared state"is anything other than a sick ruse is if both have the power to bargain and compromise effectively, which means immediate equal political and voting rights, which is something many, (though by no means all) settlers who call for this are afraid of.

(Btw, crab, if you're interested and want to listen to a rather... unorthodox settler activist, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc8fYgC86rA)

EDIT: Also that Australian guy is terrible and should be droned tbh.

[DavidB.]

The only country that could push Israel to leave Judea and Samaria is the US: "Europe" won't do nothing, Europe isn't a thing and it will never be in the future. I consider it very unlikely that the US will undertake such an operation, not because all the talk about politicians liking Israel so much (we probably totally agree on that blahblah), but because the national backlash will be extreme and therefore the political costs will be too high. (By the way, the US can only do this because they are so much involved in Israel's business and Israel lets that happen because it's too dependent on the US; a good first step would be saying: "We are an independent country and we don't need any financial aid.") However, the greatest threat was (and is, though to a much smaller extent) Israel pulling a Gush Katif in the areas, and I'm quite sure it won't happen anymore.

The pathway to such a shared state is obviously rocky but I don't think there is any other moral option. We already discussed it and we could also discuss it here, because I think you're bringing up some very relevant points, but frankly I'm more interested in what the final situation should look like. I've been fascinated with consociational theory, and I think there are many instances in which states manage to overcome the problem of extremely fragmented societies as long as elites are genuinely willing to cooperate. A design based on the Belgian model when it comes to segmental autonomy and the Swiss cantons when it comes to territorial autonomy could do the trick; it could also resolve the issues between secular Jews and religious Jews in Israel (which are going to be more relevant/polarizing in the future due to the demographic development) by simply decentralizing power. Of course such a state should provide equal rights and equal powers for the two "segments", but that shouldn't be problematic for anyone if powers are decentralized. I realize how hard it will be to reach this in reality, but it is simply a necessity: eventually, both peoples are going to stay. We can't fight each other for another century.

Also, Yehuda Hakohen is a huge FF.

[MalaspinaGold]

The only country that could push Israel to leave Judea and Samaria is the US: "Europe" won't do nothing, Europe isn't a thing and it will never be in the future. I consider it very unlikely that the US will undertake such an operation, not because all the talk about politicians liking Israel so much (we probably totally agree on that blahblah), but because the national backlash will be extreme and therefore the political costs will be too high. (By the way, the US can only do this because they are so much involved in Israel's business and Israel lets that happen because it's too dependent on the US; a good first step would be saying: "We are an independent country and we don't need any financial aid.") However, the greatest threat was (and is, though to a much smaller extent) Israel pulling a Gush Katif in the areas, and I'm quite sure it won't happen anymore.

The pathway to such a shared state is obviously rocky but I don't think there is any other moral option. We already discussed it and we could also discuss it here, because I think you're bringing up some very relevant points, but frankly I'm more interested in what the final situation should look like. I've been fascinated with consociational theory, and I think there are many instances in which states manage to overcome the problem of extremely fragmented societies as long as elites are genuinely willing to cooperate. A design based on the Belgian model when it comes to segmental autonomy and the Swiss cantons when it comes to territorial autonomy could do the trick; it could also resolve the issues between secular Jews and religious Jews in Israel (which are going to be more relevant/polarizing in the future due to the demographic development) by simply decentralizing power. Of course such a state should provide equal rights and equal powers for the two "segments", but that shouldn't be problematic for anyone if powers are decentralized. I realize how hard it will be to reach this in reality, but it is simply a necessity: eventually, both peoples are going to stay. We can't fight each other for another century.

Also, Yehuda Hakohen is a huge FF.

If the US decided for whatever reason to invade and make some "adjustments" there's not much Israel could do about it. I'm not saying it's likely, but categorically saying that the settlements are here to stay, or even that Israel is here to stay, and thus have free reign is... not advisable, especially given the Jewish people's... history on this matter.

In addition, as a leftist, I cannot in good conscience support a consociational settlement, precisely because the power to govern is permanently entrusted to the elite, because the people can't be "trusted". This also means that any sort of real solidarity is impossible, because as this would be a threat to the elites' power, they (the elites) would intentionally incite, and any broad-based popular movement would be crushed.  Now obviously you're a right-winger so you don't mind the elite running things to suit themselves, but it disgusts me as a left-winger. One thing I'll note is that, muh horseshoe theory aside, the only other Jew I know who advocates such a solution is the head of Jewish Voice for Peace at my chapter*. When i asked him how a binational state would work, he explained that businesses on each side would work together to make it a reality. It's this that showed me how incompatible a one-state solution is with genuine leftism, rather than faux-leftist bleeding-heart Kumbaya liberalism.

Regardless, this is all besides my point- namely, that you cannot have a consociational agreement developed and implemented by just one side, even if it's the best, classiest, etc solution possible. Unilateralism might be possible in separation, but not in cooperation.

I have deep respect for HaKohen, and I think he's sharp as a whip, and is one of the relative few who "gets it" Obviously I have serious fundamental differences with him (the largest being that I see no  value to settlement in the West Bank), but in general I feel that people like him can be instrumental in actually bringing about a solution.

*Who ALSO happens to be the son of known loudmouth Miko Peled, imagine that.

[DavidB.]

I continue to underestimate how much your socialism influences your opinion on these matters. The idea that I'm a rightwinger "so I'm obviously in favor of elite rule" is actually bare nonsense. I generally don't like elitism at all, and I happen to agree with much of socialist theory when it comes to defying the elites and giving power to the people (which is why I advocate decentralization and why I think the Swiss cantonal model is superior to an elite-rule model) - the difference is only that I value private property and personal freedom in a different way, and that I think (I might say: know) that in principle, capitalism without government intervention leads to the most prosperity for absolutely everybody in society, including the poor. All irrelevant for this thread, probably, but me being in favor of elite rule is absolutely untrue. It's just that this case cannot do without prudent elites in order to prevent a full-scale war and enormous tragedies.

Consociationalism, indeed, needs elites on both sides to work together in order to stay together. The funny thing is: both peoples don't want the country to be separated. Arabs want Haifa and Jaffa, Jews want Shilo and Hevron, and the only ones who think a two-state solution will lead to eternal peace are delusional colonialists like Kerry and Mogherini, who don't understand jacksh*t about the Middle East and about Middle Eastern peoples. Some of the more good-willing Arab elites will understand that this will actually benefit them as well, and in the meantime, Israel should unilaterally work toward this goal, mainly by decentralizing powers.

We really need to stop thinking in terms of "the one's loss is the other's gain": peace is possible if both peoples come to understand that Jews have a right to live in Shilo and Arabs have a right to live in Haifa. In my view, this is more of a problem on the Arab side, which is why I'm sceptical about the extent to which this is realistic, but it's the only moral way and the best solution for both peoples, which is why I'm extremely positive about it as well. Obviously, all of this needs to be implemented slowly, EU-integration style, but it will also slowly bring peace, as long as both of the political elites manage to convince their people that the consociational solution also works the best for them.

I still don't understand how you, as a Jew, don't seem to get the value of living in Judea and Samaria, especially since I assume you've been there. Maybe this isn't too relevant for this thread, though, but I find it intriguing. Some years ago, I held the same position (and I advocated a two-state solution), but I changed my mind after reading much about the importance of these places within the framework of Jewish history, and on issues regarding indigenous peoples' rights. On Hakohen, we probably agree to a large extent. His views are inspiring. Miko Peled, on the other hand, is absolutely repulsive to me, a traitor of the tribe, who engages in activities that seek to destroy us.

Regarding Israel's future and the future of the communities in Judea and Samaria, the difference between us might be my belief: "Mi she ma'amin lo mefahed"

[Comrade Funk]

Annexing "Judea and Samaria" over some event that happened thousands of years ago is BS. Absolutely no justification. Should the Seminoles claim Florida? Not to mention annexation will destroy the point of Israel, a Jewish and Democratic state. You lose one of those by annexation.

[DavidB.]

Annexing "Judea and Samaria" over some event that happened thousands of years ago is BS. Absolutely no justification.

1) This is a distortion of my argument. 2) Because you say so? Not really convincing, sorry...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This is really interesting to read. I don't have much to add, but I'm enjoying reading it.

[MalaspinaGold]

I'm just pointing out that the binational solution would likely be exploited by economic elites on both sides to even further entrench their power, and bring about even further liberalization of the Israeli economy. Since you believe in liberalization, it likely wouldn't bother you so much as t bother me.

And you keep making this contradiction between saying you are anti-elitist yet support essentially handing the reins of  government over to them. I suppose it depends what you mean by elites- if you mean economic elites, I couldn't go along with that, I could go along with worker elites but obviously you wouldn't go along with that, and political elites are a) too easily corrupted and b) are restricted in their visionary dreams by the fact that they have to be elected by people who don't necessarily care about those dreams. For me relying on "elites" for anything intrinsic rather than as a "necessary evil" is a no-go.

Ultimately, I agree with the early Zionists (e.g. Pinsker) that we should not be constrained by things that happened 2000 years ago. We should not be obligated to be 21st century Maccabees. Ultimately, I think it's up to the Jewish people in each generation to decide what they want to be as a nation. In other words, if they want to share a legitimate binational state with Palestine (as opposed to an illegitimate occupation of Palestine), and the Palestinians agree, I may disagree, but I'd have to honor the decision. However, I'd argue more Jews, both in Israel and abroad, agree with me that Silwan and Hebron are simply not worth it, and ultimately, I think that should be respected by you.

I haven't been to Israel, let alone the West Bank, though that is primarily because I don't have a passport. I'll likely end up going at some point, though I'm certainly not in a rush to do so. I don't think the disparity between us is based on religiosity- I know plenty of Orthodox Jews who disagree with the settlement enterprise while remaining Zionist, and almost everyone I know from HaKohen's cult is an arch-secular.

The problem with people like Peled etc. are, to paraphrase a friend of mine after talking to his son, is "he's the whitest Jew I've ever met."

Question: I may have asked this before, but when you say you support Palestinians living in Haifa etc., are you implicitly backing the Right of Return?

[DavidB.]

I'm just pointing out that the binational solution would likely be exploited by economic elites on both sides to even further entrench their power, and bring about even further liberalization of the Israeli economy. Since you believe in liberalization, it likely wouldn't bother you so much as t bother me.

Israel has the worst of both worlds: extreme inequality on the one hand, yet a bad business climate on the other hand due to the remnants of the Labour Zionist era: tariffs, extreme costs of land which makes building expensive, et cetera. I think Moshe Feiglin has the best ideas when it comes to the economy. Anyway, I was talking about political elites and not about economic elites.

And you keep making this contradiction between saying you are anti-elitist yet support essentially handing the reins of  government over to them. I suppose it depends what you mean by elites- if you mean economic elites, I couldn't go along with that, I could go along with worker elites but obviously you wouldn't go along with that, and political elites are a) too easily corrupted and b) are restricted in their visionary dreams by the fact that they have to be elected by people who don't necessarily care about those dreams. For me relying on "elites" for anything intrinsic rather than as a "necessary evil" is a no-go.

I was talking about political elites, and I see this as a necessary evil rather than something intrinsically good.

Ultimately, I agree with the early Zionists (e.g. Pinsker) that we should not be constrained by things that happened 2000 years ago. We should not be obligated to be 21st century Maccabees. Ultimately, I think it's up to the Jewish people in each generation to decide what they want to be as a nation.

This is interesting because it hits the core of our disagreement. According to me, we Jews wouldn't be an actual thing if G-d didn't give us the Torah, if G-d didn't give us a mission. That's no "constraint", it's our raison d'être. It is clear that there have been different interpretations of our obligations throughout the ages, throughout different places in the world - yet a Bukhari Jew from Uzbekistan kept the shabbat just as much as the pintele Yid in the shtetl in Poland did, and the Yemenite fighter. That is no constraint, it is our mission.

I like the phrasing of your statement that it's up to us to decide what we want to be as a nation It's almost literally what's being featured in one of the new tracks of Jewish-Moroccan rapper Shi 360: "It's perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in" - directly from Robert F. Kennedy's beautiful speech after the assassination of MLK. But is it up to us to decide what we want to be as a nation? I'd say yes, but within the boundaries of the halakha. We are not here for ourselves, we are here to serve G-d, and in that regard, individualization and assimilation have caused one of the greatest tragedies in the history of Jewry. At the same time, however, the history of our nation has entered a new chapter through the various waves of aliyah and the establishment of the State of Israel, which fulfills a religious purpose and which will eventually cause Mashiach to come, if we're ready for it as a people. As long as we're fighting each other, however, it won't happen.

I like parts of early Modern Zionism because of its optimism and because of the fact that it definitely fulfilled a religious purpose, even if many of these people weren't aware of that. However, its secularism did a lot of damage, to Ashkenazim as well as to Mizrahim (to the latter, however, not by choice, which makes it not only a mere tragedy but also a crime), and these wounds still need to heal.

In other words, if they want to share a legitimate binational state with Palestine (as opposed to an illegitimate occupation of Palestine), and the Palestinians agree, I may disagree, but I'd have to honor the decision. However, I'd argue more Jews, both in Israel and abroad, agree with me that Silwan and Hebron are simply not worth it, and ultimately, I think that should be respected by you.

"They"? You, too, are part of this story. Anyhow, we could both make bold statements, but there has never been a referendum on this, so we don't know what the majority think. And then there's the question whether the majority is always right as well... I don't think I could respect a government giving all that away. I will always have great respect for the Israeli government, which has a religious purpose, but I'd oppose such a decision in all legal ways, just as the honorable people who were ethnically cleansed out of Gush Katif in exchange for thousands of rockets opposed their treatment by the government.

I haven't been to Israel, let alone the West Bank, though that is primarily because I don't have a passport. I'll likely end up going at some point, though I'm certainly not in a rush to do so. I don't think the disparity between us is based on religiosity- I know plenty of Orthodox Jews who disagree with the settlement enterprise while remaining Zionist, and almost everyone I know from HaKohen's cult is an arch-secular.

Might be, but I'm not part of his cult. I'm an independent thinker, and I'm quite critical of some of Hakohen's assumptions as well. Not sure what you mean with "arch-secular": in terms of the design of the Israeli state or in terms of religious observance? If it's the latter case: obviously, since his campus work is geared to left-wing American students.

Btw, I know quite some haredim who don't identify as Zionist, but I actually don't know Orthodox people who oppose living in Judea and Samaria, but this could be more of a normal thing in the US.

If you go to Israel, you should definitely go to J&S as well Let me know when you're going, I might be there and show you some things For me things became different when I first went there. Not primarily in terms of political views, but in terms of feeling the connection with the homeland, specifically with J&S - and every time I return, I have that same feeling. Wouldn't be surprised if you had that too

The problem with people like Peled etc. are, to paraphrase a friend of mine after talking to his son, is "he's the whitest Jew I've ever met."

Not sure what that means. You mean: assimilated, not proud of his roots and his identity?

Question: I may have asked this before, but when you say you support Palestinians living in Haifa etc., are you implicitly backing the Right of Return?

Interesting question. Short-term: no. Long-term, if there is a stable situation: I need to make up my mind about that. It all boils down to their status and their ties to the land. It is clear that some of them have obvious ties to the land, which should be respected, but I don't necessarily think that the third-generation descendants of Syrian or Egyptian dwellers who only arrived in the Land of Israel 1910 and fled in 1948 should have that right as well. Therefore I think the question should be answered on a more individual basis, which seems legitimate, since a Jewish people/tribe has existed for centuries and centuries whereas a "Palestinian" people/tribe is something relatively new (post-Israeli independence), and to a certain extent also something that came into being as a political weapon against Jewish presence in Israel. But I'm not sure about my answer to your question yet. This is all hypothetical anyway, first because I'm quite pessimistic about progress and second because I'll be honest: the interests of my people are my number one principle in this case, and I won't hold myself to theoretical standards regarding the conflict toward others that could, in the future, clash with these interests. I consider that an obligation to the Jewish people and to G-d.

[MalaspinaGold]

Ugh, even setting aside his soft Kahanism, Feiglin's libertarian trash on economic issues as well. I'm extremely disappointed in you .

In addition, I don't trust political elites to fix things for the reasons I gave you before. At some point they become soft-bellied technocrats, who flap about helplessly as xenophobic faux-populists grow in strength (and yes I'm thinking of Europe as I type this).

And yes in this case I think the fundamental difference between us is the religious divide. I don't follow the commandments (although I try to avoid treif), and I go out of my way not to attend services of any kind. I'm not just agnostic, but fundamentally disinterested in God, and I think his presence or absence is irrelevant to Zionism and Israel. I also have to point out that by my definition of Zionism (the national movement for self-determination/auto-emancipation of the Jewish people), I'm not sure you could be considered a Zionist, since you seem to believe in our self-determination only if we make the right choice (Halakha/serving God). Now, I don't judge people based on whether or not they pass or fail my version of Zionism (that is unless they're low-energy losers like Miko Peled) but I think it's important to note nevertheless.

Regardless, since we're arguing from two different sets of assumptions/values, the only way the debate could be effectively resolved is if you become secular (don't see that happening), I become religious (LOL), or if one side ends up decisively winning the ground war.

I basically never get spiritually attached to specific places, primarily, as you may have guessed, I am very materialistically-minded.

Mainly the way I got to meet peacenik Orthodox was through a facebook group I joined about a year ago. Needless to say my view of Orthodox Zionists is indeed higher than it used to be.

And re: Peled, the largest problem is that he looks at things through the eyes of a European liberal.

[DavidB.]

Well, a debate doesn't necessarily have to lead to one person winning, it can just be interesting and lead to a better understanding of each other's positions (and it definitely leads me to avoiding my stuff for my studies... t_t)

Regarding your point about Zionism: I'm also in favor of our self-determination in terms of having our own state and living there if Israelis happen to make the wrong choices, and one could even argue that it "has to be like that" if it happens. The fact that I don't think we're morally free to deliberately choose the wrong way, doesn't mean that I think Israel shouldn't exist as a Jewish homeland if we do so. Not sure how that fits your definition of Zionism, and I won't lose much sleep over it (although tbh I won't sleep because of my deadline anyway...), but just to clarify things.

Regarding Peled: yeah, that's what I thought. People at least need to have some self-respect as Jews and see the world through some sort of Jewish perspective (which can be a myriad of things, from yours to mine). I can definitely see how people who don't have this could be considered "the whitest Jews".

[MalaspinaGold]

Well, a debate doesn't necessarily have to lead to one person winning, it can just be interesting and lead to a better understanding of each other's positions (and it definitely leads me to avoiding my stuff for my studies... t_t)

Regarding your point about Zionism: I'm also in favor of our self-determination in terms of having our own state and living there if Israelis happen to make the wrong choices, and one could even argue that it "has to be like that" if it happens. The fact that I don't think we're morally free to deliberately choose the wrong way, doesn't mean that I think Israel shouldn't exist as a Jewish homeland if we do so. Not sure how that fits your definition of Zionism, and I won't lose much sleep over it (although tbh I won't sleep because of my deadline anyway...), but just to clarify things.

Regarding Peled: yeah, that's what I thought. People at least need to have some self-respect as Jews and see the world through some sort of Jewish perspective (which can be a myriad of things, from yours to mine). I can definitely see how people who don't have this could be considered "the whitest Jews".

I have two midterms this week also, but i will note that when I mean self-determination I don't mean that in terms of owning a bit of land, but in the sense of controlling one's destiny, being able to make decisions about your future with relative freedom, etc.

[DavidB.]

I have two midterms this week also, but i will note that when I mean self-determination I don't mean that in terms of owning a bit of land, but in the sense of controlling one's destiny, being able to make decisions about your future with relative freedom, etc.

So your definition of Zionism is wider than only Israel-related views? If yes, then when did Zionism start, according to you? And obviously we have relative freedom, in my opinion. Relative, but still a lot.

[MalaspinaGold]

I have two midterms this week also, but i will note that when I mean self-determination I don't mean that in terms of owning a bit of land, but in the sense of controlling one's destiny, being able to make decisions about your future with relative freedom, etc.

So your definition of Zionism is wider than only Israel-related views? If yes, then when did Zionism start, according to you? And obviously we have relative freedom, in my opinion. Relative, but still a lot.

What Hess argued for was definitely a form of Zionism or proto-Zionism, I suppose the roots of modern Zionism are in the thinkers (such as Krochmal and Graetz, who Hegelianized the Jewish people, and started analyzing us as something other than a religion.

And of course "freedom" in a capitalist country is an oxymoron (normal Poale Zion Left/Mapamnik).

More seriously, I have indeed come to the view that Zionism means something far more to the Jewish people than just Israel. It's about Jews viewing themselves as a nation, rather than just a religion. Which is why it's perfectly possible for Jews to be living in Israel, for Israel to exist, and yet Zionism to be on life support or extinguished- if the Jews themselves do not place a value on independence, self-determination (which might mean different things for different people, but for me is obviously some sort of socialist state).
I suppose to put it into language you could connect with, Israel is like a vessel of Zionism, but it is a) not the only one and b) not always effective.

[DavidB.]

I'll reply to this later because I really need to work on my midterms and it's 4:44 AM here Also lol @ the extreme derailing of this thread.

[MalaspinaGold]

Good luck on those. As always it was an... interesting and good conversation.

This is really interesting to read. I don't have much to add, but I'm enjoying reading it.

Any more thoughts/questions?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I will always have great respect for the Israeli government, which has a religious purpose, but I'd oppose such a decision in all legal ways, just as the honorable people who were ethnically cleansed out of Gush Katif in exchange for thousands of rockets opposed their treatment by the government.

At least the residents of Gush Katif were treated better than those of Deir Yassin. It's not surprising that many Arabs fled rather than risking extermination at the hands of Irgun and its sympathizers. Really, Zionists have no room to bring up the ethnic cleansing card.

By the way, it was interesting to see you in that same post both complain that Palestinian identity was invented during the last century and complain that Syrians had moved there post-1910, when if it weren't for the last hurrah of European colonialism, Sykes-Picot, both Palestinians and Jordanians would likely see themselves as Syrians today.

[DavidB.]

At least the residents of Gush Katif were treated better than those of Deir Yassin. It's not surprising that many Arabs fled rather than risking extermination at the hands of Irgun and its sympathizers. Really, Zionists have no room to bring up the ethnic cleansing card.

Yawn. Yeah, we should feel soooooo bad about the fact that their attempt to finish Hitler's efforts failed... The Irgun were literal FFs.

By the way, it was interesting to see you in that same post both complain that Palestinian identity was invented during the last century and complain that Syrians had moved there post-1910, when if it weren't for the last hurrah of European colonialism, Sykes-Picot, both Palestinians and Jordanians would likely see themselves as Syrians today.

I think you read another text than I did. I don't "complain" that Syrians moved to the land of Israel after 1910, that was natural because of the economic development in the Land. Neither did I ever argue that European colonialism was a force for the good in the Middle East. If you want to know why, I guess you should read up on the British aloofness when Arabs killed Jews in Hevron in 1929, when Arabs launched their intifadas in the 1930s... all because of the "settlements" of course, and because of the Israeli state. Oh wait. These didn't exist. Worse, the Brits denied Jews entry to the Land, leading them straight into death instead, and they ruled over Jews like a bunch of dictators. The literal freedom fighters that sought to undermine this dictatorship and free Israel from the British yoke are heroes.

Anyway, in past discussions you have sufficiently proven to me that you really don't give a toss about Jewish lives, so I will not further discuss this issue with you.