How Jewish is Israel?

[SteveK]

Yes.
No.
Yes.

Recorded. Israeli atheist brazen dog.

[Jorge]

Quotes from Woble:

The ideology of the Left, on the other hand, is oriented towards striving for Utopian ideals- world peace, classless society, universal human brotherhood, etc.

These were undoubtedly the ideals of the historical Left, under the guidance of the former socialist parties. They are not anymore a patrimony of Left or Right. (if would be great if we could do away with the concepts of Left and Right but they are so ingrained in our lexicon that we can’t).

Entrepreneurs of globalization are to be called leftists or rightists? Because, in principle, the idea of globalization entails disrupting the present status quo of delimited sovereign states, a notion that has been at the root of conflicts and wars in the last two centuries. Globalization entails world peace, not as a value or an ideal, but because wars are generally bad for business nowadays; a classless society subtends greater purchasing power and a social fluidity essential for business in a big scale. As for “universal human brotherhood”, except for fundamentalists here and there, it has become an idea accepted by all.

Since these ideals are not rooted in reality but rather rebel against the "unsatisfactory" nature of the real world, the Leftist analysis will invariably place theoretical possibilities over observable facts, abstract morality over pragmatism and style of argument over substance.

Again reality and real world creep up. I’ll come back to them in another post, except for a few remarks. What’s “unreal” about a world at peace under the aegis of super-multinational-corporations? Is this an idea from the Right or from the Left? Scandinavian countries, which are quite close to classless societies, are to be considered “unreal”? Entities like Microsoft, Coca-Cola or Toyota have an stake in “world peace”; China’s leadership is more interested in selling cheap clothing all over the world than in propagating socialism. The world wide Web is acting precisely as its name implies, making possible an unprecedented communication and dialogue between individuals of different cultures.

What we are witnessing nowadays is, very likely, only the beginning of a profound reorganization of international power structures. Right and Left have very little meaning in this process. It is mainly in this sense that I said that Woble’s characterization of Left and Right are outmoded. We still cling to those concepts in debates about provincial conflicts (as shown by the animosity between leftists and rightists in this Forum) because they are useful to abstract view points but, at a global level, they are fast becoming obsolete.

As to the Left placing “abstract morality over pragmatism”… We all heard President Bush justifications for embarking in the Iraqi war; didn’t he place abstract morality over pragmatism? I don’t say I believe him, but a lot of Americans did; would you call them leftists? That war was opposed by Europeans mostly on pragmatic grounds; does that make them rightists? Wasn’t a Mr. Reagan that coined the phrase “Axis of Evil”? What’s that but “abstract morality”?

As to the Left placing “theoretical possibilities over observable facts”… Coming back to the religious fundamentalists of all sorts... a suitable description for them could be precisely that they place “theoretical possibilities over observable facts” and of course they put “abstract morality over pragmatism”. Does it mean that they are lefties?

The last one: “to prefer style of argument over substance”. I think that’s rather a cardinal sin of intellectuals whether Left or Right . Much of our debates in this Forum would fit under that heading.

[MGB8]

Let me further characterize the policy differences between the (non-anti-nationalist) left and the right (not the extremes, the more central, although I think many on the left have shifted over to the right's position).

The left says "only by giving the Pal Arabs as close to everything they want as we can stand do we have the best chance that they will stop attacking us." Hence, the preference for the 1967 borders, some sort of "right" of return, unregulated borders, etc. etc.

The left PRESUMES a peace partner.

The right responds "the positions that giving them so much would put us in are untennable, to big a risk, not for defeat but for much loss of our lives." Therefore, unlike the left, who's willing to make (reckless) security risks in the hope that the Pal Arabs will stop attacking, the right responds, we will take some major, security risks to end our untennable control over 2.5-3 million Pal Arabs, but we will not give up everything on some illusory hope that it will make them not attack - because given the Pal Arabs track record, it just won't happen - Pal Arabs will still attack.

The right DOES NOT presume a peace partner, while still acknowledging the realities of the situation and Pal Arab claims/human rights.

The left's policy is outwardly focused - give them enough (appease appease appease) and maybe THEY will stop.

The right's policy is inwardly focused - get rid of liabilities (control of the Arabs) and consolidate security assets, but make sure that WE are in the best strategic position to defend ourselves.

[Jorge]

From MGB8’s Post#183:

The left says "only by giving the Pal Arabs as close to everything they want as we can stand do we have the best chance that they will stop attacking us." Hence, the preference for the 1967 borders, some sort of "right" of return, unregulated borders, etc. etc.

The left, or at least the Israeli left, simply doesn’t say neither thinks this. This is merely your interpretation of the platform of the left. Two main written documents form the basis of that platform nowadays: The Ayalon-Nusseibeh Manifesto and the Geneva Initiative; that is what the left says in this context; we have discussed them in-depth in this Forum and there is no point in detailing them again, but one thing is evident from those documents: they are quite far from conceding close to everything the Palestinians want.

No one in the Israeli left that I’ve heard off maintains that even by giving the Palestinians everything they want they will stop attacking us. That would be an incredibly naïve position, not at all in line with what we know about terrorism of the Islamic fundamentalist sort. A negotiated agreement will not put an end to that sort of terror, even if we were to grant unrestricted right of return and surrender our army, terrorist attacks would not likely cease.

(Sometime ago I said in half jest that the only way to stop terror would be if all the Israelis converted to Islam. The brutal bombings of last week in Jordan, a Moslem country, show that even that would not help.)

In my view to link the cessation of terrorism with a negotiate agreement, either as a necessary outcome of negotiations or as a precondition, as some in the Right contend, is at its best a show of ingenuity at its worst a show of bad faith.

What’s said above doesn’t remotely mean that the left is against fighting terrorism. On the contrary. What leftists say is that, while there’s need to continue a relentless fight against terrorism, we have to avoid punishing an entire Nation for the crimes of some of their folk.

To be continued...

[MGB8]

Ah.. so here Jorge says... we want to give them all this even though it WON'T stop them for killing us... which brings the question, what is the point? Its not even land for peace anymore... its land for sense of moral purity, which rests on the dimissal and discounting of Israeli claims, and is willing to sacrifice the blood of his family for this sense of moral purity? That is insanity.

At least my interpretation had the left CARING about the lives of their families and others in Israel, and trying, albeit in a naive and defeatist way, to protect them.

[Jorge]

Continued from #184.

Quote from MGB8’s Post #183:

The left PRESUMES a peace partner.

The right responds "the positions that giving them so much would put us in are untennable, to big a risk, not for defeat but for much loss of our lives." Therefore, unlike the left, who's willing to make (reckless) security risks in the hope that the Pal Arabs will stop attacking, the right responds, we will take some major, security risks to end our untennable control over 2.5-3 million Pal Arabs, but we will not give up everything on some illusory hope that it will make them not attack - because given the Pal Arabs track record, it just won't happen - Pal Arabs will still attack.

The right DOES NOT presume a peace partner, while still acknowledging the realities of the situation and Pal Arab claims/human rights.

Yes, that’s right, the Left “presumes” a peace partner. Presently the partner for a negotiated agreement is, in the view of the Left, the PLO leadership directed by Mr. Abu Mazen. The word presumption, or rather assumption is correct. No one can know for sure if a negotiated agreement, once signed, will be ratified by the majority of Palestinians. If not, we’d have just wasted the time of our leaders. (However, since our ministers spend most of their time in petty political squabbles instead of governing the country, their wasted time would not be a great loss.)

I’m not quite sure what are those “(reckless) security risks” MGB8 alludes to, and also when he talks of “unregulated borders” as a leftist proposal. The Left has been proposing for quite a long time a return to the 1967 borders; the Right insisted for years on the notion of “no borders” along the West Bank. We should not forget that Mr. Sharon’s government was for a long time against creating a separation fence and only yielded to it because popular pressure. A fence along the Green Line could have been completed by now and would have certainly saved quite a number of Israeli lives; when it finally started building the separation fence, it was according to a design so contorted and absurd that by now it’s got twice the length, it’s five times as costly… and it’s not nearly finished.

Settlements like those that were set up in Gaza or the existing one in the middle of Hebron… is this your idea of “regulated defensible” borders?. Let’s face it, as more and more isolated settlements and outposts are created every year, the farther we get from the notion of “secure borders”.

In the light of those considerations, claims of the Right such as in MGB8’s Post, quote:

The right's policy is inwardly focused - get rid of liabilities (control of the Arabs) and consolidate security assets, but make sure that WE are in the best strategic position to defend ourselves.
appear sort of surrealist, entirely disconnected from a perceived situation. I have yet to hear of an army officer contending that “the best strategic position to defend ourselves” is to disperse your army thinly, guarding hypothetical "security assets" in the middle of enemy territory.

[Jorge]

From MGB8's Post #185:

Ah.. so here Jorge says... we want to give them all this even though it WON'T stop them for killing us... which brings the question, what is the point? Its not even land for peace anymore... its land for sense of moral purity, which rests on the dimissal and discounting of Israeli claims, and is willing to sacrifice the blood of his family for this sense of moral purity? That is insanity.

Of course it's insanity! But, since I haven't said the insane things you put in my mouth or, rather, in my keyboard, I don't mind.

I still think it's a good advice for you that next time you use the sentence --here Jorge says-- that you copy and paste what I actually said. This would have the benneficial effect for you that, while copying and pasting, what I actually said may, I do hope, become apparent to you. Additionally this procedure will save our readers, if any, a considerable amount of time, otherwise entirely wasted.

[Jorge]

In this discussion I’ve been dodging replies to my somewhat provocative statement in #159 : “there is no reality of the situation” (situation: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). This because the question, is far removed from the subject of this Thread. The question of “reality” merits discussion though, because it keeps appearing again and again and that’s why I’m opening a Thread called “The Reality of Situations” in the Religion/Culture Section where it properly belongs. Religion because there is a religious outlook of Reality, different from the agnostic one, and Culture because of its philosophical implications.

[MGB8]

Another cop out.

There is one reality. Oh, there are claims and feelings and beliefs and explanations that can be contradictory (ie. the actions of Mohammed) but there is only one historical "truth." Either fact A happened or it did not. Furthermore, in reality, there is only one "truth" as to intent, and other things (ie. either Mohammed was a war-monger barbarian or he wasn't), but, for ancient history, such things cannot really be discovered, whereas for the present, we have access to much more information.

ie. the Pal Arab statements, TV, Newspapers, dancing and museums for terrorism, poll numbers, schoolbooks, shaheed posters, leadership, attacks, etc. etc. are real. There is a reality. And there are those who choose to look the other way as the train rushes towards them.

[MGB8]

ps... as to the settlements, they were often designed to be "roadblocks" to invasion (ie. Egypt went up Gaza almost to Tel Aviv before; Ariel blocks a path towards easy bifurcation of Israel.)

They also allow the control of the area to help stop things like weapons smuggling and low level terrorism.

When the Pal Arab state appears, Israel will have a much harder time, if any capability, to stop the flow of heavy arms to Pal Arab terrorists. And if they want to disrupt them, it will be war.

In the end, that is what we are most likely approaching, Jorge.

The Pal Arabs will get a state, they, as you soundly predict, will not stop attacking. In fact, with the ability to get more and better weapons, there attacks will be more successful, prompting a large war.

The thing is that you are happy about the rush towards this, and want to speed it along. I believe in doing what is politically possible towards keeping the war as far away as possible. Nevertheless, make no mistake, chances are that there will be a very hot, very violent, much more death that there is now war between Pal Arabs and Israel within 10 years.

In part because of lefties like you who don't want to hold the Pal Arabs accountable for terrorism.

[Mediocrates]

There's probably a difference between 'truth' and 'narrative'. We each have a narrative we assume is prima facie true. But facts are slippery things, you can selectively knit together isolated facts that some people assert are more true than other facts and cobble together a complete story or narrative which may or may not be 'true' in the Platonic sense. History isn't physics you know. There is no gravitational constant for history. No Avogadro's Number, no Mole's law, no speed of light in a vacuum.

And someone can come along and cobble together an entirely different narrative from many of the same disconnected facts or records or whatnot. Which is why it's futile to argue the point.