How Jewish is Israel?

[MGB8]

Lets see...

First we get the "there is no objective reality" argument. So, the left can argue... "oh, Arafat didn't mean everything he said... Trojan Horse? Plan of Phases... he was KIDDING!" , "oh, the polls from the Pal Arabs don't mean what they say they mean, people's opinions will change if we are really nice to them," "oh, the numbers of Pal Arabs who support IJ, Hamas, Al-aqsa, with the stated goal of destroying Israel... don't mean anything..." "oh, it doesn't matter that the intifah was pre-planned, it was Sharon's visit"... "it doesn't matter that the Pal Arabs are already smuggling stingers, etc. into Gaza... we need to give them more open borders with no Israeli defense mechanism and even an unregulated link!" etc. etc. etc.

No... there is objective reality, and then there is opinion which attempts to disregard objective reality. The (far) left, with their utopian ideals and intrinsic defeatism, hide behind these hail-mary-hopes because they don't believe that they can win the fight, if it comes to that.

As to the issue of "what happens if I'm wrong..." clearly, there are issue where you can say the right my do this - ie. the idea that we need to expell the Arabs right now, instead of taking more (reasonable) risks for peace.... well... if the right is wrong about the Pal Arabs, then the expulsion would be unjustified... first we need some more proof of their intentions (although the rejection of Camp David/Taba and what has been going on the last months, and the last years... is a lot of proof in of itself.)

But, if the left is wrong about the Pals and give them everything they want, Israel is in a precarious position in a war, although it would still likely wins. If you take a more cautious approach, and you are wrong... there are still risks, but its much more limited.

As to the Israel comment... interesting response. The idea that being an Israeli (thus taking the risks you are proposing) or having large ties or family there doesn't make much of a difference. Silly.

Lenin, or Stalin, whoever first talked about "usefull fools" was exactly right. But there is no excuse any more for being such a fool.

From MGB8 Post# 150 :

"…empty rhetoric from lefties, not dealing with the reality of the situation, and trying to weasel out of designating as extremists those who actually care about not risking their family's lives too much. Those who don't pay attention to the reality of the situation, those who don't care about the question "what if I'm wrong", and those who ignore and/or dismiss the claims of their own in favor of those who want to kill them and their family (presuming, of course, that Jorge is Israeli, which is doubtful from previous incarnations on this board)"

MGB8 description of “lefties” borders on the absurd. I’d like to discuss one by one his propositions:

a) “Those who don’t pay attention to the reality of the situation.”

By ‘situation’ I assume you mean the people and resources involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a component of the larger Israeli-Arab conflict. By reality I assume you mean objective reality.

There is no “reality of the situation”, especially of one as complex as this; what there is are individual assessments of the situation based on the data that each individual has at hand. Since many individuals are observing the same situation you can usually round up those which are similar and come up with “group assessments” or, if you wish, “interpretations”. None of these groups can claim that their assessment is objective; each group has a certain common worldview (beliefs, prejudices, opinions, etc. etc.,) that will perforce affect the selection of facts and their interpretation. You cannot expect Palestinians postulating the same “reality” as Israelis, no more than Americans and Iraqis postulating the same reality of “that” situation. May be a group of Martians observing the situation may get closer to the objective reality than we can; this not because they were more intelligent but because they could afford to be dispassionate and detached, not caring at all who’s right and who’s wrong.

“ Lefties “ as a group do have a different interpretation of the conflict than “righties”. Of course each group thinks that they are correct and that the opponent is wrong, but to say that the other group is wrong because their views do not correspond to “the reality of the situation” is untenable.

b) those who don’t care about the question ‘what if I’m wrong’.

I suppose there are many in the leftist camp guilty of that sin. I suppose that there are many like that in the rightist camp as well. Human beings are far from perfect. However, although I might be wrong, I think I perceive in Israel far more internal ideological debate within the Left than within the Right. For some reason the Left is more prone to “intellectualism” than the right; this trait may largely explain the apparent impotency of the Left to influence public opinion in favor of their views. By using empty slogans, a technique in which the Right excels, it's much easier to impact public opinion than through elaborate reasoning as leftist leaders are prone to make.

c) those who ignore and/or dismiss the claims of their own in favor of those who want to kill them and their family

I hope you’ll accept my proposition that “lefties” are human beings like you or anyone. If there is one basic instinct common to all humans, it is that of survival, not only personal survival, but also applied to their next of kin. Why on earth would I and the other leftists favor the cause of those that want to kill us and our families? I cannot think of a possible reason. Have you got any you want to propose?

A final note: I don’t see why my real or supposed “israelishness” should be an issue here. You claim to live in Philadelphia; it has never occurred to me that if you actually lived in Southampton or Beer-Sheva your views would be more or less valid.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...&postcount=278

http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...&postcount=279

[Jorge]

Woble : I very much appreciate your learned response to my Post#159. I’m afraid it will require a pretty lengthy answer divided into several posts. This, together with “the politics of science fiction” and the discussion with MGB8 about “the reality of the situation” is taking us far away from the subject of this Thread so, if the Moderators think we should open another Thread in Israeli Politics or Religion/Culture it’s OK with me.

Before getting into the substance of your Post I’d like to clarify some points.

The first refers to Orwell’s quote. I do not contend that “intellectuals” have a higher IQ than ‘non-intellectuals”. I do not know why Orwell thought so but, to my knowledge, this is an unwarranted assumption of his. You don’t have to have a particularly high IQ to be an intellectual (although, admittedly, a very low one doesn’t help) what you need is a fairly good education and spare time to read, discuss, go to concerts and visit Museums. Less fortunate people that have to work long hours to make ends meet usually cannot afford, and loose the inclination towards, those luxuries. That’s why you tend to find far more intellectuals in the upper income layers than in the lower ones; in short, more a question of socio-economic circumstances than IQ’s.

The second refers to intellectualism and political opinions. I should have remarked but I didn’t, that, when talking about Israeli intellectuals, we cannot ignore the religious sector. It just so happens that in Israel the majority of people we may call intellectuals are those devoted to Torah studies in yeshivas or other institutions. There’s quite a number of definitions for intellectual, my preferred one is: "a person who uses the mind creatively". Nevertheless whether one uses that definition or any other, one finds that it applies as well to those religious scholars. From the little I know about the Talmud, I’d say that to become a learned Talmud scholar is as or more difficult intellectually than to be proficient in Statistical Thermodynamics. Furthermore they are “full-time intellectuals’ since they devote their entire daily life to intellectual pursuits; whereas the lay intellectuals are usually “part-time intellectuals” since a fair amount of their daily lives is devoted to earn their living, many times in boring and menial jobs.

Two main reasons why I’m bringing them in: One is, sheer numbers. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that the number of people devoted to higher (not beginners) Torah studies is in Israel in the vicinity of 50.000. Their counterpart in the lay side of “full-time intellectuals” ,which includes the upper levels of University lecturers and successful writers and artists, appears to be close to a tenth of that. Two, and more important, when we attempt to link intellectuals with given political opinions we cannot ignore that the political affiliation of that large sector, if any, is closer to the Right than to the Left. When we try to apply Orwell’s insights about Britain in WWII to the Israeli situation, the ”religious intelligentsia” cannot be left out of the analysis.

The more substantive part of your Post, that is, about Leftist and Rightist ideologies I must leave for a later one.

[SteveK]

SteveK I think your tefflin is being wrapped way to tight

gandolf2005:

Finally someone addresses me here with a clear personal position.

This thread should be renamed THE TOWER OF BABBLE .

You mean my tefilin are being wrapped way to tight.

[Cato]

gandolf2005:

Finally someone addresses me here with a clear personal position.

This thread should be renamed THE TOWER OF BABBLE .

You mean my tefilin are being wrapped way to tight.

It seems like the Pig escaped from it's stye.

[Jorge]

Quote from #160:

The Left is prone to "intellectualism" for a very simple reason: the Leftist dogma is in its nature irredeemably Utopian. The ideology of the right is, by and large, oriented towards preserving the status quo first and foremost, and improving on it is but a secondary objective conditional on preservation of the system. As a result, any analysis from the right wing viewpoint will lean towards observable over the hypothetical, and is mainly preoccupied with seeking out dangers to the status quo.

The above paragraph may be critically discussed from two alternative perspectives. One is as Left and Right in general, as concepts incorporated in our western culture. Another is as Left and Right in the specific case of Israel. I’ll try to concentrate first on the second aspect.

My contention is that if we were to accept Woble’s characterization of Left and Right, we’d have to call the Israeli Left, Israeli Right and vice versa. This mainly because in Israel it was the Right that disrupted the status quo viz. our conflict with the Palestinians and it was the Left that tried to uphold it.

A short historical recollection would be in order: The distinction bet. Israeli Left and Right in their present form may be said to have originated after the Iom Kippur war. Before that, Woble’s differentiation may have hold, at least roughly; some sort of dividing line existed between those advocating socialism and cooperativism (Mapai, Maki, etc) and those opposing it, on the Right. In the late seventies the Labor Party dropped any pretensions of socialist ideas and shifted to those of free market economy, privatization of state enterprises etc. Regarding its socio-economic policies Labor Party came to be indistinguishable from Herut or Likud. As a consequence leftist ideas (in the European sense) were left without any major representation in the Israeli party system.

Between 67 and 74 only a handful of leaders both in “that Left” and “that Right” took seriously the idea of annexing the West Bank. The consensus idea was largely that the occupied territories were to be held as a trump card for future negotiations with Arab countries. The policies of all the major parties were intended to maintain the status quo created after the Six Day’s War. What upset that status quo was the emergence of Gush Emunim who actively promoted the creation of civilian colonies in the WB which eventually would pave the way for future annexation. Gush Emunim filled a sort of ideological vacuum, they were the only ones with a clear ideal and the determination and the “revolutionary fervor” to put it in practice. As such they dragged behind them the former Right. A new Left took shape that supported the status quo created after 1967 and the Labor Party was left in the middle not quite knowing what to do.

Led by Gush Emunim, a bloc of political parties that became known as the Israeli Right, embarked the country in an enterprise designed to continuously create new facts on the ground that would facilitate annexation. It was the new Left and the perplexed Labor Party that were “mainly preoccupied with seeking out dangers to the status quo.” This new Left was largely consolidated through its opposition to the Lebanon adventure, conducted by Sharon and supported warmly by the Likud and sectors of Labor. The Lebanon adventure was another initiative that intended to change the status quo by altering previously established borders.

As I’ve said in former posts Gush Emunim and later the majority of Religious Zionism, managed to set the Agenda for the development of the conflict in the Israeli side. Not even in the rosy times of Oslo was the settlement initiative halted, quite the contrary. Status quo was shattered and a new entity (the “settlled occupied territories”) took its place. Throughout this process it was the new Israeli Right that acted as “idealists” while the Left took a pragmatic position, “leaning towards the observable over the hypothetical”. If any position may be characterized as Utopian then the closest is the one of the Right, purporting that Israeli rule in the territories can be continued indefinitely with the Palestinians eventually giving up their aspirations and living happily ever after under the benevolent eyes of the Israeli Army.

To be continued…

[MGB8]

OMG... Jorge is still fighting the last war... the socialism versus capitalism battle.

Get over that... Socialism lost. Oh, remnants remain, ala Europe, but in the end, like Europe, Israeli will drift farther and farther to the right (though maybe not so far as the US economics.)

This makes sense though - for a lot of economic (pseudo marxist) lefties, (and mind you, on economics I'm on the Democrats side here in the States) tend to be as single-minded as abortion opponenents. Nothing else matters but the Utopian Idealism that is socialism. And security, the safety of their families... comes a distant fifth to the questions of radicalism and property sharing.

In the end, however, here's the bottom line:

Israel and the Pal Arabs have competing claims on the WB and Gaza. The Pal Arabs have claims on Israel proper, too, but those claims are trumped by the fact that all of the citizens of Israel, Muslim/Christian/Jew... Arab or other ethnic... can all vote and are all represented in the Government. The Sovereignty over Israel proper cannot be challenged - it exists. However, there is NO sovereignty over the WB and Gaza. Israel did Annex Jerusalem, and has offered the Arab residents there the vote, but many have not availed themselves of it.

Anyway, back to the competing claims. The left position is to ignore and belittle the Israeli claims to the WB and Gaza, in the hope that by giving in to all the Arab claims, and paying no attention at all to security concerns, the Arabs can be appeased and Israel be "spared" (hence the defeatism, the idea that Israel must be spared by the mercy of its enemies).

There are other lefties, of which Jorge may well be, who are simply anti-Zionist - they don't believe that Jews have a right to have their own national homeland (although then they take on the cause of the Pal Arabs, either in two state format, which is purely about a ethno-nationalist sovereignty - a "state of their own" or a one-state-solution which in the end result would be the same thing.) Most Anti-zionists are thus mere Jew-haters (be they Jewish or otherwise), they deny to Jews what they will fight for on behalf of others.

The hard right position is to attempt to force 100% of Israel claims to win out over the Arab claims on the WB and Gaza. This, IMO, is a far more legitimate position than dismissing/disregarding Israel's claims... as, at least the hard right sides with their family and their own - they know that the other side has claims, but they don't really care, will attack the other's claims, and act in furtherence of their own interests... its clear which 'side' they are on.

However, the pragmatists believe in doing neither (a) nor (b). Instead, they believe in a compromise between claims, yielding much to the Arabs, but with the caveat that first and foremost the SECURITY of their family be taken into account. Again, there is no question about whose side the pragmatists are on. They don't dismiss either sides claims... what is of primary concern is protecting the LIVES of their 'side' - not through defeatist appeasement, but through practical measures, like some influence on border control, ending incitement, disarming the terror groups, etc. etc.

These are the 3 groups. Beilin and Sarid represent the hard left. Unfortunately, much of the soft left is not so far away from them. Sharon, and the vast majority of the Israeli public, are in the pragmatist camp. The hard right have their own representatives, maybe Landau.

[MGB8]

ps - there is no support for the notion that the right wanted to not preserve the system while the left wanted to preserve the system, which is different than "change the status quo". After all, what is the status quo. Israel gained control of the WB and Gaza. So, does the right, who want to settle it, want to disrupt the status quo, or does the left, who wants to renounce control over the WB and Gaza (but it won't go back to Egypt and Jordan) want to disrupt the status quo.

Not a good line of argument, there.

[Jorge]

MGB8:-
Re., your Post #172, I know it's a lot to ask for but...would you mind reading my posts before replying to them?

[MGB8]

A trite little (non) response to what I took from reading your post, which was that you are fighting the last war.. the fact that economics played so quickly and heavily...

the history you cite... its frankly bogus. False. To claim that neither the left or the right wanted to Annex the West Bank is a yarn made out of whole cloth... between 67 and 74 (a relatively short period of time), there was no concensus - and certainly not any concensus over whether the WB would still be on the table indefinately. Sure, returning them to JORDAN/EGYPT (not the Pal Arabs) was an option... but not all of them.. after all East Jerusalem had been quickly annexed.

Then, your statement about Status Quo is what is really at issue. After all, as I further elaborated, what is the status quo? The legal status quo? The demographic?

Again... my point is very important. In response to YOUR definitions of left and right, I presented an ALTERNATIVE definition of left, right, and the status quo.

Instead of responding to that alternative, you post a snide comment. Fitting.

[SteveK]

It seems like the Pig escaped from it's stye.

Stoooopid girl:

Why don't you concentrate on one language at a time to master it.

Dingbat. Try not hanging upside down so much.

When you write "it's", the meaning is "it is". It's a contraction of the two words, you ignoramous.

Here, you need to write "its", without the apostrophe.

[Cato]

Stoooopid girl:

Why don't you concentrate on one language at a time to master it.

Dingbat. Try not hanging upside down so much.

When you write "it's", the meaning is "it is". It's a contraction of the two words, you ignoramous.

Here, you need to write "its", without the apostrophe.

Who cares pig?

Try not bathing in mud so much, maybe then you won't stink, and you will be in a better mood.

This is an informal internet board, nobody is checking for grammer other then you.

Edit-P.S you spelled stupid wrong.

[SteveK]

Who cares pig?

Try not bathing in mud so much, maybe then you won't stink, and you will be in a better mood.

This is an informal internet board, nobody is checking for grammer other then you.

Edit-P.S you spelled stupid wrong.

You only know how to raise your little paw to Arab terrorists and world anti-semites to appease and surrender to them.

You Israeli atheists have brought nothing but shame on the Jewish Nation,--- as the occupiers of Arab land, the murderers who inherited, and the war criminals. You nullify the Jewish God given claim to the Land of Israel and its defense for 3,500+ years.

You teach Greek children not to be anti-semitic,--- by simply erasing from their minds even the concept of the Jewish Nation with 3,500+ years of heritage and their God given Land of Israel.

You filthy little Israeli atheist

[Sivan]

Excuse me, but are you not religious?
Have you never heard of 'lashon ha-ra' ?

Example :
A man went about the community telling malicious lies about the rabbi. Later, he realized the wrong he had done, and began to feel remorse. He went to the rabbi and begged his forgiveness, saying he would do anything he could to make amends. The rabbi told the man, "Take a feather pillow, cut it open, and scatter the feathers to the winds." The man thought this was a strange request, but it was a simple enough task, and he did it gladly. When he returned to tell the rabbi that he had done it, the rabbi said, "Now, go and gather the feathers. Because you can no more make amends for the damage your words have done than you can recollect the feathers."

Speech has been compared to an arrow: once the words are released, like an arrow, they cannot be recalled, the harm they do cannot be stopped, and the harm they do cannot always be predicted, for words like arrows often go astray.

[Sivan]

Yes.
No.
Yes.