Sunday, June 27, 2021

I'm Not Dying To Save You

Over the last few days I have seen a number of Jews, who purport to care about the well-being of the State of Israel, criticize Israel over the civilian casualties in Gaza, despite the fact that Israel made extraordinary efforts to minimize such casualties, unprecedented in the history of warfare. They said that it would be better to avoid any military response at all (since it inevitably results in some civilian casualties, no matter how much effort is taken to minimize them) and simply rely on Iron Dome. They bemoaned how Israel's actions will result in sanctions and loss of aid to Israel. 

Such attitudes are, at best, utterly stupid. Iron Dome is only about 90% effective, which is why Israelis still had to rush to bomb shelters, and several people were nevertheless killed. And the rockets don't only exact a price in terms of human life and physical injury - the psychological damage, especially to children, is immense. Furthermore, there is enormous economic cost. And that's all with Israel attacking and neutralizing the rocket launchers and terrorist infrastructure. If Israel did nothing at all, the attacks would go on forever! No country could possibly survive that way. 

Furthermore, for Israel to send a message that "We will not defend the lives and well-being of our citizens if this causes loss of civilian life in hostile regimes" would be announcing its death sentence. Hezbollah would immediately launch its own arsenal at Israel, which is vastly more powerful than that of Hamas.

What about the political cost of Israel's military campaign? Yes, that's certainly a serious matter, and it's precisely what unfortunately forces Israel to end its campaigns before thoroughly neutralizing the threats. But the political damage is far, far less than the damage that would be suffered if Israel simply did not respond to attacks on its cities. (And fortunately there are still some sensible political leaders and parties who understand the necessity of Israel's actions and do not suffer from Judeopathy.)

So, considering that expecting Israel not to do anything is so stupid and dangerous, why would Jews who purportedly care about Israel expect such a thing? I think that I figured out the answer. 

One of these people, who claimed to care about Israel more than those who actually live there (!!!), said that he wants to avoid the "shame and embarrassment" of Israel being a pariah state. I think that's what it's all about. Certain people have a very strong sense of identity as liberal Westerners. They hashtag Black Lives Matter. They abhor absolutely everything that Trump ever did. They are progressives, through and through. For such people, it's deeply embarrassing for their own sense of identity to be associated with a country whose actions are being condemned by their political bedfellows. (And it's unthinkable for them to politically support those who acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself.)

I can understand that this is embarrassing. But don't expect me to compromise the safety and well-being of my family and neighbors in order to save you from embarrassment. Frankly, it's revolting to even ask it.

 

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

171 comments:

  1. Sure. Might be helpful to include a link or two.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Still waiting for a justification of the civilian occupation of the West Bank though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've said it already: In order that the West Bank doesn't become like the Gaza Strip.
      Oh, you want just to remove the settlements and only leave army bases? I don't think the Palestinians will want that either. It still won't please them.

      At some point, we'll have to relinquish control entirely--and then there could be a Hamas takeover. Or that they'll be voted into office. What then? To go back in to overthrow the Palestinian Hamas government?

      Delete
    2. Something something otherwise Israel is just a thin strip of land that is undefendable something something the more Jewish cities in the West Bank there are then the FEWER terrorist attacks there are something something buffer around Yerushalayim.

      Also, enabling the citizens of the West Bank to have jobs in not-West-Bank or even in Israeli factories that are built in the West Bank (like Soda Stream? Right?) give the Palestinians economic opportunity that they otherwise would not have. This is not a reason (bc if it was it would be a colonial White Man's Burden thing and wrong), but it is an OK post-fact-justification. It allows for the argument that those who oppose factories like Soda Stream are really trying to take away jobs from the Palestinians.

      Oh, and "It's Our Land." There is that, too. One of Netanyahu's best responses.

      Delete
    3. The Hat is one of those useful idiots referred to in the poster of R. Slifkin's post.

      He has stated elsewhere that Yesha, (including (Yesha, including Gush Etzion, Maale Adumim) should be Judenrein. He'll probably take umbrage given that I used a historical term that the Nazi's used to indicate places free from Jews. But that's where his umbrage ends. Actually enacting a policy of Judenrien and displacing Jews - that doesn't concern him so much.

      Delete
    4. @Yehuda P: what Palestinians don't want is irrelevant. Because some Palestinians have maximalist counterclaims doesn't provide any moral basis for civilian settlement. It's not about pleasing them. It's about doing the right thing.

      Having said this I do not doubt that those whose misfortune it is to share the locale with Boruch Marzel et al will welcome respite.

      There are numerous civilian settlements which are a security problem. And it is an offence under the rules of land warfare to blur the boundaries between military security installations and civilian settlements. That's why Hamas rightly is condemned for firing tickets from schools.

      Yosef R: the sliver of indefensible land was (checks notes) defended successfully in 1947 and 1967. Since then Israel's position has become even more assured, while developments in ATGM technology has made the costs of an Arab invasion of Israeli land much higher than it was back then (which is why warfare is now much more of an attritional rather than manoeuvre character).

      I am all for the full freedom of capital into and out of the West Bank. I cannot see how a military occupation facilities business investment.

      If the West Bank is Israeli sovereign territory then why is the voting suffrage only extended to racial Jews, unlike in Israel proper? You can't have your sovereign cake if you eat racial voting laws.

      Israeli courts have repeatedly justified the occupation on security grounds and security grounds alone. That's Israeli courts. International courts have held the occupation to be illegal, full stop. No grown up is claiming it is Israeli territory.

      Delete
    5. Good. I want more land grabs and more "occupations." As Bibi said, "It's Our Land." Why should Arabs live in the West Bank and not Jews? It would be as if in Texas only Mexicans lived there, and yet America owns Texas. That would be ridiculous. My ancestors (I mean recent as in the last hundred years) lived in Lebanon. Way back when Lebanon was a Jewish population. They were very few Arabs there. Why should Lebanon be an Arab state? I would like to see Israel take back her territory.

      Regarding West Bank, do you think Israelis want to be there? No, they don't. They have to be there because if they are not there they will be another Hamas in the region firing rockets. But frankly, I would like to see Israel take the west bank back too. Look at a map. It's stupid. About a third of Israel is cut in half. Imagine any other country putting up with this nonsense. It's just stupid. There's your justification.

      Delete
    6. Shmuel: I think many Israelis live in the West Bank because the Begin and Shamir governments paid subsidies for olim to live there. I don't think actual facts on 48 and 67 supports the contention that the 48 borders are indefensible. Having a civilian Jewish presence in, for example, Chevron has *caused this year* tens of security incidents. The civilian expropriation is its own security problem.

      Croatia puts up with a linear strip down to the exclave of Dubrovnik after its brutal war of independence from Yugoslavia and so can Israel.

      I don't oppose Jewish citizens of an Arab majority Palestine living there, although I worry for their safety and for pragmatic reasons would subsidise the desettlement project with the same energy and state resources that went into the settlement project.

      Circumstances are not yet right for a military withdrawal from the West Bank. Israel should be working politically towards this with 5 years.

      I told Frank before that his cooption of the Holocaust to support the Occupation is as despicable as the Zionism=Nazism antisemites on the other side of the aisle. If he insists on using Nazi analogies he should have due regard to the reality that it is Israel who is doing 100% of the occupying and approximately 95% of the killing.

      Delete
    7. Same justification for the civilian occupation of the Negev.

      Waging and losing wars has consequences.

      Delete
    8. Hat: You wrote, "he should have due regard to the reality that it is Israel who is doing 100% of the occupying and approximately 95% of the killing."

      What proof is that? Was it not Hamas who started firing the rockets? Did you know the Arabs killed a million Jews? Yes— a million—yes, a Holocaust. When did Jews kill a million Arabs? The answer is never. So don't say that Israel is doing 95% of the killings when they killed more of us than we of them.

      Delete
    9. 1) We pulled out of the Sinai as part of the peace deal with Egypt. Making peace requires restraint.

      2) Palestinians played a very marginal rule in the 1967 war when the West Bank was captured. Mainly it was a war with Syria and Egypt, whose decision it was to initiate war.

      3) If Israel is claiming sovereignty over the West Bank then there should be universal suffrage to sell voters rather than the current situation of voting being permitted only to one race.

      4) The doctrine of conquest is rather frowned on in civilised societies. See the reaction to the conquest of the Donbass. We do live in 2021.

      Delete
    10. @The Hat:"International courts have held the occupation to be illegal, full stop."

      Yes, I also heard Norman Finkelstein say that what Israel has to do is very simple: just simply comply with international law, and end the occupation.

      Is there anyone responsible to control the land after Israel leaves it?

      Abbas and the PA, whom the majority of Palestinians hate and want to see him deposed?

      Or perhaps Hamas, who shot 24,000 rockets from Gaza. Unfortunately, they're forced to shoot rockets out of civilian areas. But don't worry. That's because Gaza is so small. When they'll have a large area to shoot rockets from, like the entire West Bank, then they'll shoot rockets from empty, uninhabited areas. And lots more rockets too. Problem solved.

      It doesn't even fit the "land for peace" paradigm. It's land for nothing--nothing but empty promises, that is. It still won't please the Palestinians, and it's not even certain it will satisfy the international community.

      Israel went back to the UN border with Lebanon. Did it achieve peace with Lebanon? No. Hezbollah still has 150,000 rockets aimed at Israel, and threatens all the time with border incursions.

      Delete
    11. Yehuda, we can't start counting potential threats as being the same as actual attacks. The fact is that since 2006 Israel has by and large left Lebanon alone, and conversely Lebanon has by and large left Israel alone. You will be old enough to remember the hundreds of Israelis who died in the occupation and the persistent attacks on the North.

      Delete
    12. Shmuel, for every year of its existence, Israel has killed far more than its citizens - or Jews elsewhere - have been killed. That's a fact. It's not possible to have a sensible discussion with anyone without a shared reality. I'm quite willing to look at any source you can find for your extraordinary claim, but I find it prima facie extraordinary.

      I have more sympathy with arguments that the people killed by Israel are more culpable then those Israel kills - for example less than 10 percent of Israelis killed by Hamas in the recent battle were combatants while approximately 50 percent of Palestinians were combatants.

      Delete
    13. Hat, surely your not going to call Bibi a killer as they do for Putin? Israel, or, more precisely, the IDF is the most moral army in the world. The IDF literally calls Gazans on their cell phones when they are going to make a strike. It doesn't matter how many people die in a conflict or the amount of weaponry used. What matters is who the aggressor is. And Hamas is clearly the aggressor when they fired rockets indiscriminately at Israeli citizens, mind you. Yes, Israel accidentally killed children in retaliation. That's a tragedy. It's not evil. However, when Hamas uses children as human shields, that is evil. Besides, what is Israel supposed to do? All war is tragic. But the Arabs have started every conflict in the history of the Israeli-Arabs conflict. The Talmud refers to Arabs as wild beasts. This seems to be the case.

      Delete
    14. Just as I thought. The Hat taking umbrage at usage of a term that evokes historical atrocities (even though it accurately portrays what he is proposing - making the land Jew free). I wonder what The Hat thinks about Abba Eban referring to the 67 lines as Auschwitz borders? I think I'm going to choose to be on the side of Abba Eban.

      Despicable are those useful idiots who bring harm to Israel through their rhetoric. Thank God I'm not counted among them.

      Delete
    15. "the sliver of indefensible land was (checks notes) defended successfully in 1947 and 1967. Since then Israel's position has become even more assured..."

      Israel's position is stronger only against conventional invasions. If Israel were to withdraw from the Jordanian conquest, she would still be able to repel a conventional invasion easily. That is only relevant if the Palestinian strategy is a conventional invasion.

      If Israel withdraws without conceding the right of return, the strategy will be the same as Hamas's in Gaza, rockets and mortars launched from schools, mosques, hospitals, and apartment complexes. This will leave Israel a choice between allowing the rockets and mortars to force a shutdown of not Israel's periphery, but of the core, or attacking the launch sites and incurring the wrath of the international community for the inevitable damage to the schools, mosques, hospitals, and apartment complexes.

      Without the right of return, they'll have claimed casus belli. With it, Israel will become a binational state if not an Arab one.

      Delete
    16. Shmuel - here are some clips of the most moral army in the world beating up children without provocation, shooting while sat on the hillside in a giggling group again without provocation, driving farmers from their land, etc. . Doubtless it was all necessary for security: -

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDQUONGCRXk
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI06XuDpw0U
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSzyDa1u2h4
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-Gpjh2VXI4
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLg-1lHPO0A
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnF2_-ET5jk

      Sar Shalom - I don't think moving the border ten kilometres makes a significant difference to the rocket threat. What does make a difference is the military occupation.

      I have already stated that because of the rocket threat the time to end the *military* occupation is not now. I venture that if the civilian expropriation had not gone ahead in the 1980s we wouldn't be facing these problems, and there is no security reason for the civilian expropriation to continue.

      -

      Frank, the self pitying whining about what hasn't even happened is nauseating. If you didn't feel any pity for the Palestinians when their land was expropriated by military order for the building of settlements, why are you comparing the rescinding of such orders to the Holocaust.

      The truth is you behaviour is antisemitic, with no respect for the dignity of the 6 million Jewish people who died in the Holocaust.

      Delete
    17. "we can't start counting potential threats as being the same as actual attacks."

      Okay. Potential threats ≠ actual attacks.
      But they remain potential threats.
      On the other hand:
      Potential threats ≠ Actual covenantal policy.
      The Palestinian Charter was never amended to remove the commitment to terror and destruction of the Jewish State. While actual attacks have subsided, the culture & laws that support them are in full force.

      Delete
    18. Hat, Ok. This is probably made up. And even if it were true, how do you know they didn't deserve it? Maybe they deserve to get beaten up every once and a while. How do you know it was without provocation? And even if it was, so what. A few bad apples do not ruin the reputation of the IDF as the most moral army in the world. And btw, do you think Iran would be any better? Iran would have been worse. There would not have been Palestinians to beat up since they would have executed all the Palestinians like the Nazis.

      Delete
    19. They don't object to "occupation" of West Bank.
      They object to occupation within the Green Lines too.
      Tel Aviv, Cheyfa, Yerushalayim, Tzfat, Meron, Rosh Hanikra, Metulla ...

      Delete
    20. Shmuel - this is a rabbit hole of cognitive dissonance. Do yourself a favour. Go to Chevron, spend a day there, and tell me this army is the most moral army in the be world. Listen to your children who have served in Chevron about what they think about it.

      The Swiss army, for example, famously has spent the last few hundred years not attacking little school children.

      MiMedinat Hayam - Hezbollah also have maximalist claims but since 2006 they have found peace more in their interests then war. At the moment life for Palestinians is so full of humiliation, discrimination, and oppression that war serves their interests better than peace. Exactly what a minimum viable settlement sufficient to incentivise peace is is not precisely clear but Palestinians have been clear that a contiguous West Bank including East Jerusalem is what they want.

      Delete
    21. Total non-sequitur response from The Hat. Probably designed to distract which is a common feature of his rhetoric. Reveals the bankruptcy of his ludicrous arguments. Self-pitying whining? What hasn't even happened? What on earth are you talking about? What whining? What hasn't even happened? Perhaps the destruction of Israel? A real head scratcher.

      And not sure who made you the official arbiter of the English language. Still waiting to find out if Abba Eban (and Netanyahu and many others) are also anti-semitic for referring to the 67 borders as the Auschwitz borders (and again I think I'm going to prefer to be on Abba Eban's side).

      Perhaps a hat. But otherwise a pretty empty suit.

      Delete
    22. "The Swiss army, for example, famously has spent the last few hundred years not attacking little school children."

      The decision to occupy the west bank is political. Once an army is tasked with occupying a hostile population, there will inevitably be a certain amount of violence.
      The argument is that out of all militaries facing similar challenges, the IDF holds its own in terms of restraint and harm to civilians. Anyone whose been in the army or has remote knowledge of the situation in the west bank knows what a joke BTS/btzelem are.

      Delete
    23. Hat, The Palestinians don't want the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They want the entire territory for themselves. The Palestinian constitution says to destroy Israel. Thus, the Palestinians don’t exist besides the West Bank. As Isaac correctly pointed out, an army occupation never works too well. On the other hand, Israelis don't want to be there. They have to be there because if they are not another Hamas will rise in the region. And I don't need to go to chevron. My ancestor went to Lebanon to try to help the Arabs. He had good intentions. He went to all kinds of trouble to get their cattle and goats upgraded. In the end, he filed and said he wasted his life. Because the Arabs couldn't do anything of value but tear things down. It's not Israel's fault they live in poverty. It's that they're not smart enough like us and Europeans. I don't know about the Swiss but the IDF is the most moral army in the world. There's a lot of evidence for it.

      Delete
    24. Isaac: you make reasonable points and I don't disagree. I don't think b'tselem would necessarily disagree either.

      I'm actually arguing against exceptionalism ("the IDF is the most moral army in the world") and not for a different exceptionalism ("the IDF is the most immoral army in the world").

      I would see the inevitable violence and misconduct when young soldiers are given a repressive mission in a hostile population who don't want them there as unexceptional, collectively so likely as to be inevitable, but still morally objectionable for the soldier who is misconducting themselves as an autonomous moral agent.

      I'm also not saying that the political decision to occupy is *exceptionally* immoral by historical or even contemporary standards.

      What I am trying to say is that the individual acts of misconduct and the collective 50+ year olds occupation is immoral and I am advocating for a serious and determined political effort to end it.

      Delete
    25. Assuming the six day war was justified, the question is whether the continuation of the occupation is immoral. And while it sometimes sounds like a tired trope, most people (in Israel) don't really believe there's an alternative, in that there's no partner on the other side. Certainly the Palestinian leadership hasn't shown much interest (reasonable or not).
      If there is no alternative, then I don't believe there's much choice for the average soldier other than to do the inevitable dirty work as nice as possible (plenty of Israeli soldiers are racist bigots, but that's a different problem).

      Delete
    26. Shmuel, your ancestor may have been full of great intentions. I'm sure Hezbollah also think they are in the right. What matters is the objective reality.

      Sharon tricked the cabinet into approving his full on invasion of Lebanon to achieve regime change, to put Christians in charge of Lebanon, and to disenfranchise the Shiites. His chosen viceroy was assassinated and what followed was a horrible messy civil war and vast destruction and death to the people of Lebanon. That's the actual facts. The road to that hell was certainly paved with good intentions.

      Delete
    27. The Hat,

      You have made the argument that because the IDF is not perfect, it thus cannot be the most moral. That is so illogical as to border on sheer idiocy.

      You remind me of the people who make the argument that the IDF is racist because its members don't rape Palestinians.

      Delete
    28. Isaac: I don't agree that there have literally been no good opportunities since 1967 to withdraw from the occupation. 1968 and 1974 both seemed apposite. Nevertheless I accept that there is an ongoing security need at the present time for a *millitary* occupation.

      The civilian settlements are a different matter. Many of them are their own security problem. Many civilian settlements are in land expropriated by military order for security purposes. Insofar as they do actually serve a security function, these settlements are a beach of the fundamental division demanded by the rules of land warfare between the military and the civilian settlement, as unlawful as Hamas firing from schools and mosques.

      There is certainly no legitimate security interest in the Jewish settlement in Chevron. I understand the history of 1929. Perceived righting of that wrong is not an exercise in self defence in 2021. It is an utter insanity in which less than one thousand people consumes inordinate state resources. Securing this
      That settlement creates unacceptable conditions for tens of thousands of other people. Most egregious these ingrates still shame the people of Israel daily with their thuggery and dilletantism. The first step in rolling back the occupation should be the evacuation of anyone involved in violence, stone throwing, intimidation or property damage from the Jewish settlement of Chevron and from anywhere in the West Bank.

      Delete
    29. Not the biggest fan of the settler movement, so won't argue much on that front.

      Delete
    30. Hat said: "Shmuel, for every year of its existence, Israel has killed far more than its citizens - or Jews elsewhere - have been killed. That's a fact. "

      Wow, I didn't know that to be moral and just, it requires allowing an equal (or is it more?!?) number of your own people to be killed as that number killed by your own military. How come no other countries in the world or their militaries know about this amazing discovery, Hat?

      On the point of Hevron, I've spent time there and had no issue with anything the army was doing there. What's your problem with it?
      They are there to protect lives. In an ideal world they wouldn't need to be. But we don't live in an ideal world. Sorry.

      Delete
    31. Hi Student v,

      a) did you ever participate in mapping operations to enter a private residence and photograph a child under ten years old between midnight and 5 am?
      b) did you ever see Jews using violence including throwing stones or intimidation towards Arabs and didn't intervene?
      c) did you ever see a child below the age of criminal responsibility detained in the sun for hours for some throwing he likely didn't commit?

      I've been told by two people who served in the IDF in Chevron - one generally liked violence in an apolitical way, the other a right wing Trump fan - that they both felt uneasy about what they saw and did in the beating heart of the occupation. See 'breaking the silence' for hundreds of other soldiers who felt the same.

      Delete
  3. It could be be ‘shame’, but I’m thinking it is more about cowardice. May also be related to a gahlas mentality and to avoid being a target of antisemites and anti Israel groups. I’d tell them grow a set of balls and do not be a chicken sh-t. Never Again. Defend yourselves. ACJA

    ReplyDelete
  4. Israel must arm too the teeth with ANY and ALL technology. Do not take Woke Liberal Anti Israel AntiSemitic BS. ACJA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. The left take the side of terrorists. Israel has the right to defend itself and use all means necessary to do so. And we will do so.

      Delete
  5. As British Jews we are mostly inculcated from birth to blindly support thr state of Israel in all its policies.

    It's not helpful to maintain your partisan position and simply shout out the facts thereof.

    It would be much more helpful to examine all the claims of the other side, and try to respond to each.

    I feel that internationally Israel does an atrocious job at hasbara.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If what you mean is that Israel is losing the PR battle, then yeah, I think most would agree with you there.

      Ditto for American Jews, BTW, naturally.

      But what ARE the claims of the other side? Didn't they get mentioned? I mean there is one: don't hurt Gazan civilians. That is the major argument.

      Delete
    2. 1)That the occupation has gone on so long with no good faith effort to find a political or unilateral solution which makes less of an imposition upon the civilians population.

      2) That the military occupation has been used as a smokescreen for civilian expropriation.

      3) That the right to vote on the government of the undisputed hegemony is granted to civilians living in the West Bank on racially discriminatory grounds.

      4) That military force is often used in a disproportionate and punitive fashion, for example 'mapping' operations in which soldiers access houses in the middle of the night to wake up 8 year old children who aren't suspected of a crime and to photograph them.

      Delete
    3. Just because the “world” refers to Israel conquering and Jews living in Judaea and Samaria an occupation, doesn’t make it reality. Just as the entire Christian world and most of the Muslim world believed/believe that Jews put blood in matzoh didn’t make that the reality. וכי אפשר שכּל העולם חייבים והיהודים זכאים?'
      אפשר ואפשר, ועלילת־הדם תוכיח. פה הרי היהודים זכאים וטהורים כמלאכי השרת : יהודי ודם! היש שני הפכים גדולים מאלו? - ואף על פי כן...
      If the Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel, as science, archeology, anthropology all say they are, how can they be “occupiers” of said land? That’s like calling the Incas occupiers if they returned to Machu Pichu and reclaimed ownership of their land from the modern day Peruvians.
      Since there is no precedent of an ancient peoples doing this, it’s confusing to many people. But really it’s quite simple. Regardless of how complicated the “world“ makes it.

      Delete
    4. Tziyoni: fine. Annexe the West Bank and give all residents - Moslem and Jewish - a vote. The current situation is that that the right to vote on the government of the undisputed hegemony of the West Bank is granted to civilians living in the West Bank on racially discriminatory grounds.

      Delete
    5. The Jordanian conquest has to be shared. Calls for it to be all Palestinian do help to get there.

      The hegemony was not exercised during the 1990s. The result is that the Palestinians were able to perpetrate the second intifada.

      Delete
    6. Sar Shalom: Israel clearly has vastly asymmetric military force, then and now, and that shows in the civillian casualty figures.

      Delete
    7. "Annexe the West Bank and give all residents - Moslem and Jewish - a vote."

      Fraud. You're not interested in their "voting rights". You know damn well that Gazas are not prevented from voting by Israel. You know damn well that those living under the PA are not prevented from voting by Israel. You know damn well that if the Arabs gain sovereignty, they will not achieve freedom.

      Delete
    8. Most Jim Crow / apartheid racist regimes justified their discrimination on equal but different grounds as soon as more blatant racism becomes illegal.

      You cannot equate the facilities given to whites in Southern USA in the early 20th century with those given to blacks.

      You cannot equate voting on gerrymandered poor townships deprived of all resources to voting for the South African government.

      You cannot equate voting for the hegemon of the West Bank with voting for the castrated PA.

      I don't complain about the occupation of Gaza. I have been very clear that I complain about the occupation of the West Bank.

      I don't know or particularly care what Palestinians do with their sovereignty so long as it stays on their side of the border. The experience since 2006 suggests that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone.

      Delete
  6. Also wants to be Prime MinisterJune 28, 2021 at 1:47 PM

    "I can understand that this is embarrassing. But don't expect me to compromise the safety and well-being of my family and neighbors in order to save you from embarrassment. Frankly, it's revolting to even ask it."

    "Don't expect me to compromise..."
    ROTFL.
    Spoken like a true taxi driver who thinks he is actually shaping Israeli policy when he shouts at the radio.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Inculcated to blindly support" is a stupid cliche. It's become very popular lately, but it's always been a lie.

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-jews-lied-to-me-at-summer-camp

    It's *especially* untrue of British Jews, who, in my experience, tend to be a lot of "conflicted" (at best) about Israel than, say, American Jews- for obvious reasons.

    As to your specific claim...the "other side" wants to kill millions of Jews. Why the heck should be have to "examine" and "respond" to that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Extremists always characterise the other as homogeneously aligned with the views of their extremists. If not all Jews are Boruch Goldstein*, not all Palestinians are Hamas.

      Delete
    2. That's not a very nuanced rendition of the conflict, is it?

      My point was that it you want to win the PR war you HAVE to be seen to engage with the other side's arguments.

      Merely stating and restating your own position will not help one jot.

      Delete
    3. I got some bad news for you. Sometimes life isn't very nuanced.

      I'd rather win a real war than win a PR war.

      Delete
    4. The Hat - Except, of course, that the actual elections in Gaza and polls in the PA show that a heck of a lot more Palestinian Arabs are Hamas than "Jews are Baruch Goldstein". A majority, even.
      Civilian settlement and annexation of our national homeland is a natural, just and moral right of our people and country. The main problem, as you yourself mention correctly, is the fear all Israeli governments have had from fully annexing all of Judea and Samaria, and building a framework for citizenship of the Arab populace. This has lead to the preservation of what should have been a temporary military governance (similar to what existed for several years in Israeli Arab population centers following the War of Independence).
      Much of that fear was of "world reaction" to such a move. Would you agree to support full annexation while granting citizenship to the Arab population?

      Delete
    5. You ask would you agree to support full annexation while granting citizenship to the Arab population.

      It risks the destruction of Israel as a Jewish majority state within a generation, but it would not be racially discriminatory. I would vote against it in a referendum (if I could vote: Israel does not enfranchise non resident citizens like me other than non residents living in the occupied territories) but I would accept it if that is what people voted for.

      It is fair to say that Hamas enjoys far more support than the PA. I cannot help but think that this is in part because under the hashgacha of Netanyahu Hamas has used Qatari billions to achieve economic, social, health and military achievements while all the PA offers is corruption and violence. It's a concerning state of affairs, but it is logical.

      Delete
    6. "You ask would you agree to support full annexation while granting citizenship to the Arab population."

      And what is wrong with annexing and granting full citizenship to the Arab residents of Area C? That would not be a demographic threat to Israel's Jewish character. If you say it's because it would leave their state too fragmented, why would Palestine need to have the Jordan Valley, which would only cause a discontiguity with Jericho?

      Delete
    7. Sar Shalom: The largest West bank towns are Chevron, Shechem, Yatta, Tulkarm, Ramallah, Qalqilya, Jenin (and East Jerusalem. ). Area C intervenes between literally every single one of them, and that's not a coincidence.

      Delete
    8. "Hamas has used Qatari billions to achieve economic, social, health and military achievements"
      I'm not so sure about economic achievements, if over 50% of Gazans are unemployed. I think the West Bank is doing far better economically than the Gaza Strip. The only thing that keeps them afloat is aid money. And Hamas threatens renewed attacks when Israel says that it won't let Qatar money through. Israel doesn't have much choice other than to let the cash go into Gaza.

      Delete
    9. Yehuda P: I'm just working off the Hasbara shots of opulent excess in Gaza.

      Delete
    10. Here are the results of a survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research:

      http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.com/

      Asked whether they have a positive view of life ("positive evaluation of conditions"), only 8% of people in the Gaza Strip say yes. In the West Bank, it's a whopping 24%. 26% of all Palestinian Arabs "want to emigrate due to political, security, and economic conditions".

      Breakdown: in the Gaza Strip it's 42% (slightly up on three months ago when it was 40%). In the West Bank, it's 15% (sharply down on 23% of three months ago).

      Delete
    11. "Sar Shalom: The largest West bank towns are Chevron, Shechem, Yatta, Tulkarm, Ramallah, Qalqilya, Jenin (and East Jerusalem. ). Area C intervenes between literally every single one of them, and that's not a coincidence."

      Well, yeah. After 150 years (and actually a lot more than that) of being attacked by local Arabs, you'll forgive Israel for consciously working to disrupt their potential power as much as possible. Not to mention that it is, well, *our* ancestral homeland to which we have historical, religious, moral, and legal rights. Are we supposed to be embarrassed about this?

      Delete
    12. Hi Nachumm, and welcome to the fray. If you could take a few moments to read up the thread, you would see what the problems are in declaring sovereignty over an area while restricting voting rights on the basis of racial identity.

      Delete
  8. As I told my grandson when he asked about the Gaza situation, if someone is spitting in your face and you have can't get away then you have no choice but to punch them in the mouth. If you knock out some teeth it's not your fault, it's his fault. This had actually happened to me when I was about 9 years old. I went home to tell my mother, fearing that I would be in big trouble for knocking out Freddy's tooth (which was a baby tooth btw). My mother assured me it wasn't my fault, and I believe Freddy's Mom kind of agreed. Ahhh, if the critics of Israel had the same good sense as Freddy's Mom!

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is important to point out that not all civilian populations are equally "innocent". The Gazans voted in the fascist Hamas government.

    We need not be overly concerned about their welfare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid that under the laws of land warfare however reprehensible the political choices made by civilians, they are not legitimate targets, and the proportionality of attacks which affect them is also not adjusted. Warfare takes place between combatants.

      Delete
    2. That may be true legally speaking but not in terms of Jewish values.

      Delete
    3. "Warfare takes place between combatants."

      Hamas rocket attacks are not between combatants.
      Thus those attacks are not warfare? And not subject to the "laws" of warfare?
      You're usually much more coherent.

      Delete
    4. I take your point and it is important that I address the morality as well as the law.

      I, a chutznik, firmly don't believe in stoning gay men, in genocide, and in raping under three year old when they turn three, and killing enemy civilians over the age of three. I suspect you agree with at least part of the my dissent from biblical values - certainly I am unaware of any Rav who agreed with Yoshai Schlissel, the kanoim pogim bo gay pride parade murderer.

      I strongly object to Hamas attacks on civilians in buses, or children in playgroup. These attacks sicken me.

      I apply my position consistently to all humanity.

      That position is indeed a galus mentality, from the collective memory of pogroms and rape through the ages. I wonder if we are not seeing in this divergence between Jews of the diaspora and the Jews of Israel how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - the strange fruit of the occupation.

      Delete
    5. Under those same rules of warfare, any civilians caught in the middle of a combat area can be considered tragic, but unavoidable, losses, especially if one of the combatant sides deliberately embeds itself among them. Said combatant side is also fully responsible for said losses. These weren't "revenge" attacks on civilians - these were attacks on military targets and combatants deliberately embedded among civilians.

      Delete
    6. @ The Hat Israel never intentionally targets civilians. The fact that they voted for Hamas makes me less sympathetic when there is collateral damage. I think that's what Mark's point was as well.

      Delete
    7. Weaver, Goren, see context at beginning of thread suggesting voting for Hamas reduced the threshold of proportionality ("we need not be overly concerned for their welfare").

      Ephraim: clearly Hamas' actions are war crimes. I'm not sure what logically follows from this vis a vis Israel's response.

      Delete
    8. "I wonder if we are not seeing in this divergence between Jews of the diaspora and the Jews of Israel how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - the strange fruit of the occupation."

      Or, you know, maybe too much time as an oppressed minority in galus in what corrupts, and it's the Israelis who have the true proper sense of morality. Ever consider that, Mr. Holier-Than-Everyone-Else?

      Delete
    9. Is oppressing a minority something you support? Are you a fan of https://twitter.com/Shlibness/status/1411490788744253442 and https://twitter.com/Shlibness/status/1411483038098374657 or not?

      Delete
  10. It's not embarrassing that Israel defends itself. It's embarrassing that Jews think Israel should take the rockets and do nothing. Like the rabbi said, I have friends who live in Ashkelon. Frankly, I'd tell anyone to go to hell who says that my friend should remain in danger from Hamas rockets. If Cuba fires rockets, I'm sure our American friends will be quick to defend themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those rockets and tunnels were under the hashgacha of the Rav haMachshir of the Qatari ingredients: Bibi Netanyahu, who let the residents of the South live in unacceptable fear for 12 years as a human shield for Tel Aviv.

      Only the liberals are interested in solutions. The populists wanted a permanent state of problem. It's good for them electorally.

      Delete
    2. Don't be so sure. Lots of American liberals would equivocate away if it was their own homes, especially if the aggressor was the "correct" type.

      Delete
    3. Nachum, yes your right. If China invaded all the purple hair weirdos would run away or embrace their new occupants. To Hat, the lefts are the ones who want problems. The right tries to actually solve stuff.

      Delete
    4. Shmuel: why was Ben Gurion airport closed by Palestinian rocker fire back in April, after 12 empty years of populist rule? What is the solution you refer to?

      Delete
    5. In what way are the residents of the South human shields for Tel Aviv? They're certainly not human shields in the way that Gaza residents are for Hamas's rockets.

      Delete
    6. Netanyahu's 'strategy' has always been predicated on no rockets over Tel Aviv. That strategy failed, but it involved soaking up hundreds of rockets on Sderot.

      Delete
  11. This is obviously an evolutionary struggle for survival. And in this struggle all means are acceptable and victory is the only thing that matters. Arabs understand this and and are gaining international support at this time. Jews never understood it, are confused, have no direction snd keep begging for peace and compromise. This isn't how the world works. For a blog that advocated a belief in evolution nothing can be more clear then that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dispute that characterisation. This is not a war the Palestinians can conceivably win. That's one of the reasons why Israel has no incentive to make peace.

      Delete
    2. Miriam PruzanskyJune 29, 2021 at 9:47 AM

      It always saddens me to read the drivel that only self-hating jews like "the hat" can come up with to justify the actions of our enemies. The British pseudo-sophistication and pseudo-intellectualism aren't strong enough to mask the stench of your guilt-driven internal conflict at being a jew. Truly a pity and I do feel for you and pray that you embrace your heritage and stop twisting yourself into a pretzel to try and find fault in your people. I can guarantee you that the NY times crowd won't like you any better for it. Stop being a useful idiot

      Delete
    3. Israel has no incentive to make peace because there is no one with whom to make peace. At least not among the Palestinians.

      We were hoping that the Palestinians would become more moderate as they improved economically. That did not happen. We're still at square one, as we were when signing the Oslo Accords, that they'll finally give us peace when we'll make more concessions. If there isn't peace yet, well, that's because we didn't make enough concessions. It doesn't work.

      Delete
    4. Hope is a powerful motivator. If the Palestinian Arabs didn't actually have hope to win, they wouldn't be trying it. Of course, many of their leaders may realize there is no hope, and cynically foster it anyway to benefit themselves and their foreign personal bank accounts. But that doesn't change the military contingency on the Israeli side. The only incentive the Israelis have ever had is for everyone to live quietly. And it was the Arab leadership that rejected every full formal peace attempt, time and again.
      Israel keeps cycling between governments who realize this and don't bother, merely trying to "manage" the situation, and governments who ignore the past and try a new offer, only for it to be violently rejected, and then get voted out of office. Looks like we're about to try another one of those now - let's see how it plays out, and how the Arabs will blame Israel gain for their own rejectionism.

      Delete
    5. A sad reason that *I* feel that Israel cannot make peace is that is the threats from the outside are gone, then Israel will have to dealt the problems on the inside, namely the secular-religious divide. And doe-eyed leftists who want to create bridges to Palestinians have much less interest in creating bridges to Bnai Brak.

      And in all fairness, Bnai Brak doesn't want the bridges either.

      But that all being besides the point: to address Mr. Hat's comment about Israel not wanting to make peace, um, wasn't it the other side who repeatedly turned down deals? Wasn't it the other side who repeatedly restarted attacks despite Israel's concessions? Take that line about not making peace bc it's politically expedient not to and apply it to the Palestinian leadership, and I think you'll find that it fits much better!

      Delete
    6. Yehuda P: I feel we have rehearsed this argument too often. What I said last time you raised Oslo is that the policy of containment has failed in its very modest goal of preventing rockets over Tel Aviv and the closure of Ben Gurion. The kicking the can down the road policy was never a policy and is now thoroughly obsolete, and it is time to create an actual policy for a solution, using military and political means.

      Delete
    7. I don't think you could seriously argue that Netanyahu made any efforts to make peace. It has been 12 years.

      Delete
    8. "I don't think you could seriously argue that Netanyahu made any efforts to make peace. It has been 12 years."

      Seriously??? That's your argument? "I don't think you could seriously argue that doctors are trying to cure cancer. It's been 50 years now". Time to lay off the drugs, buddy

      Delete
    9. There's something sickening about the whingeing victimhood.

      I assume you would be deeply uncomfortable if outside your house were armed Arab settlers and soldiers who made sexually degrading comments to you in from of your children every day, looked for opportunities to fight with you and degrade you, who invaded your house every few months in the middle of the night to take pictures of your little children, who made you shutter up your windows in your own house, who made you wait for hours due to arbitrary roadblocks in your own road, who kept vandalising your house, arbitrarily arresting your children and leaving them to bake for hours in the sun, and where you could be be expelled from your house at any point 'for operational reasons' under the order of the unelected district military governor and may never be allowed to return.

      Welcome to Chevron, home of the civilian occupation which is its own security problem. You should spend some more time there learning about the Occupation and what acts of racist, thuggish moral degradation the IDF orders your children be a party to. After all a majority of your children will spend time in the city and many will come out embittered and harmed from being the military bodyguards of Boruch Marzel.

      Delete
    10. Hat,
      In what ways are COGAT's actions insufficient at securing Palestinians' civil rights?

      Delete
    11. Sar Shalom:

      Let's put this in practical terms. Say you are a store holder in the Chevron Kassaba. Boruch Marzel saunters along, with his teenaged accolytes, and flips your table over. You protest, so he punches you in the face, and his accolytes destroy as much of your goods in 2 minutes as they can. The IDF turns up, orders you down the street, and tried to persuade the thugs to leave, which they do after 15 minutes and further property damage. The soldiers have forgotten about you, so only after two hours are you allowed to return to your business. Who do you complain to, and what do you think will happen to your son's work permit if you complain?

      COGAT is part of the regime of oppression, operating racially discriminatory policies on housing permits.

      Delete
    12. The fact that you insist on spelling his name with an "o" actually says a lot about you, none of it good.

      Delete
    13. Please spare me your alternate facts Hat. There is no other way to description for calling COGAT part of the regime of repression.

      Delete
    14. Raised on liturgical Ashkenazi Hebrew accent.

      I don't swap / code-switch because I feel it would be affectatious but I completely support the right of other Ashkenazi Jews to self-identify as Mizrachim.

      Delete
    15. There's no form of Ashkenazi or English accent that pronounces kamatz as "o." Just overcompensating charedi spelling.

      Delete
    16. Hat: "This is not a war the Palestinians can conceivably win."

      Not on their own they can't. However, either the West cutting off arms supplies to Israel or the international community applies sanctions, it would be possible. The determination of whether or not those would happen is not if Israel's actions justify those reactions, but if the major media portray Israel's actions as justifying those reactions. Useful idiots such as yourself are part of making that portrayal the one that is seen.

      Delete
    17. Far from being a useful idiot, I am exposing the realities of the occupation to a naive public fed pabulum about what goes on.

      In 2014 COGAT issued 493 (four hundred and ninety three) demolition orders against Palestinian structures, and issued 1 (one) building permit in Area C. That is profoundly discriminatory. The reason is simple. The occupation isn't there just for security reasons. It is an ugly spirited land grab.

      Delete
    18. Not really alternative facts. Here is an eye witness and images of the be aftermath of Marzel doing his thing pretty much as I described it.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PsQfdwpEbMk

      Delete
    19. Is Marzel in any way connected with COGAT? Barring any such nexus, your imputation of Marzel onto COGAT qualifies as an alternative fact.

      Delete
    20. "The occupation isn't there just for security reasons. It is an ugly spirited land grab."

      That all comes from the premise that it belongs to the Palestinians in toto. Other than the fact that Jordan conquered it in 1949, what entitles the Palestinians to all of the Jordanian conquest?

      The great international bait and switch known as the Oslo Accords was pitched to Israel as a process by which to determine how to share the territory and was sold to Israel as not committing to any particular outcome. The switch is the international community now prejudgudging the "proper" outcome by calling it the "occupied Palestinian territories."

      Oslo created a process by which transfer of sovereignty could be negotiated. The PA rejected that in favor of making land grabs. COGAT's demolition orders are a counteraction to those land grabs.

      Delete
    21. Nachum: It depends on what "o" you're talking about. There is no pronunciation where komotz is "o" as in ode. However, in Ashkenazic and Yemenite pronunciation, it is "o" as in ought.

      I have a copy of Schire Jeschurun at home. It transliterated (into German) patch ad "a", komotz as "o" and cholem as "au". Example, "Lecho daudi."

      Delete
    22. Sar Shalom:

      You disputed my characterisation of an incident that Marzel might involve himself in as 'alternative facts'. I have corroborated the scenario as factual.

      You also dismissed allegations COGAT are part of an apperatus of oppression. Again, I have refuted that separately. I appreciate it's hard to keep track of which of your denials of reality are being refuted, so maybe ease up on the uncorroborated denials of reality and then it will be easier to administer.

      On the issue of sovereignty I have made the same point repeatedly: you should have the courage if your convictions. Go ahead, declare the West Bank Israeli territory, give all residents a vote, and see what happens to the Jewish character of the state.

      Delete
    23. I didn't dispute your facts. I disputed your claimed relevance of those facts.

      Examples: "You disputed my characterisation of an incident that Marzel"

      In what way did I say that Marzel did not do any of things you pointed out that he did? I claimed that COGAT has no connection with him. Any error in that claim.

      "You also dismissed allegations COGAT are part of an apperatus of oppression."

      The fact you cited to support that claim was the demolitions authorized by COGAT. I did not claim that COGAT did not authorize any demolitions or that the number was less than what you claimed. I stated that the cases where COGAT authorized demolitions were counteractions against Palestinian land grabs. You want to say that the Palestinians are entitled to the land that they are grabbing or some other reason that denying them of those land grabs constitutes oppression, go ahead. Doing so is not factual.

      Could you show sufficient intellectual integrity to recognize the difference between disputing your facts and disputing your logic?

      "Go ahead, declare the West Bank Israeli territory"

      I call for sharing the Jordanian conquest, a concept that is apparently beyond your ability to comprehend. Not that it should be all Israeli or all Palestinian, it should be shared. The Palestinian portion should have the bulk of the Arab population of the territory and sufficient land to facilitate the operation of a unified political entity. Jordan's conquest of the territory in 1949, and subsequent Arab jurisdiction until 1967, does not entitle the Palestinians to anything more.

      Delete
  12. Those are evil reformers. The same type that did nothing for Jews during the Holocaust yet were willing to die to get Blacks to vote in the U.S.A. They are the erev-rav and are disconnected to Am Yisrael.

    Ssvi

    ReplyDelete
  13. You find something wrong with those "who claim to care about Israel more than those who actually live there", punctuating the sentence thusly: !!!

    How does this differ from your repeated sticking your nose into US Politics? More specifically, how does this differ from your attacks on Trump, who made essentially the exact same points regarding immigration as one of the key planks of his administration (viz, that none of his opponents actually lived in border states)? You're a big supporter of the American left, the entire platform of which is one gigantic mass of hypocrisy. So hypocrisy is a problem when it concerns you, but something that can be ignored when it doesn't?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You're a big supporter of the American left." It's hilarious and revealing that you say that. I'm not a supporter of the Left at all. I'm just a huge critic of Trump. It's amazing that people infer from that that I must be a Leftist!

      Delete
    2. Oh really, you're not a supporter of the left? In what material way can you distinguish yourself from them? You accuse those who disagree with you as "racists". You're believe absolutely anything that's labeled "science". You're fully on board with their beliefs about "the environment." You have a fanatical hatred of the religious right. You're in favor of big government and regulations. You engage regularly in hypocrisy. You belief yourself smarter than the public. You admire academics. I concede you differ admirably from them on certain issues, notably free speech, but on nearly all other items of importance you are on all fours with them. This is now your community.

      In your mind you think you're not a leftist, you were just a critic of Trump. Sure. Like they're not anti-semites, they're just critics of Israel.

      Delete
    3. @RNS, if your not a Lefty then why are you a huge critic of Trump, especially when he has does so much good for Israel?

      Are you saying you are a moderate?

      Delete
    4. Shmuel I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your comment. So everyone who is a big critic of Trump is a "Lefty"? Is Mitch McConnell also a "Lefty"? How about Mike Pence? I bet he's a pretty big critic of Trump now, ever since Trump effectively encouraged people to hang him.

      Delete
    5. "You accuse those who disagree with you as "racists"."
      Even if true, it doesn't makes someone a leftist.

      "You're believe absolutely anything that's labeled "science". "
      Even if true, it doesn't makes someone a leftist.

      "You're fully on board with their beliefs about "the environment.""
      The terms "fully on board" & "their" makes this statement an exaggeration. I doubt you believe it yourself.

      "You have a fanatical hatred of the religious right."
      Even if true, it doesn't makes someone a leftist.

      You're in favor of big government and regulations.
      Are you against regulations? Isn't there anyone who's in favor of big gov't but not regulations? Please be clear.

      "You engage regularly in hypocrisy."
      Even if true, it doesn't makes someone a leftist. Do you know what "regularly" means?

      "You belief yourself smarter than the public."
      Most people reading this blog (including you) are smarter than the public.

      "You admire academics."
      Like Thomas Sowell? Raoul Berger? Even if true, it doesn't makes someone a leftist.

      Delete
    6. And yet, Rabbi Dr, the Trumpet QAnon fruitcakes are not the same clear and present danger as the Kahanaist nutjobs who spend their days bothering little children in Chevron.

      Delete
    7. Ephraim - all you're doing is attempting to redefine the common understanding of "leftist" (such words games itself being one of the defining hallmarks of the left.)

      Delete
    8. @RNS So your saying your a critic of Trump but your not a Lefty. So your saying your conservative (righty)?

      Delete
    9. Try reading through thebulwark.com to find right-wing criticism of Trump. That is they are right-wing unless you consider former Senator Jim DeMint a leftist and the Whitewater investigation a leftist cause.

      Delete
    10. Of course, the problem (actually, just "a" problem) with a two party system is that everything gets lumped together. A person could be fiscally conservative yet socially liberal. Protecting the environment could be super important to someone yet also having a strong national defense or response to crime. Someone can be religious and therefore socially right-leaning and also be completely bewildered by those in that part of the political spectrum who want to be able to own guns.

      Those of us who have views on nonaligning issues have to take silly labels like "moderate Republican" or "blue dog Democrat" or what have you.

      And plenty of conservatives criticize Trump.

      Delete
    11. "Fiscally conservative yet socially liberal", "moderate republican" - such nice-sounding, make-everybody-happy creatures don't exist. (I don't know about "blue dog democrat"). On every proposed program or budget item one must ultimately vote one way or another.

      Delete
  14. Sorry to go off topic, but this may be of interest to the Rationalist Judaism community.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fF9nlYZiIk
    Rabbi Dovid Katz (the Baltimore one) opening his Three Weeks series on "Fundamental Disagreement: the Maimonidean Controversies of the Middle Ages"

    ReplyDelete
  15. Look, mate, I voted twice for Trump, but he, while advocating many good policies, was an inefficient president who had degraded the high office by his behaviour. If he runs in 2024, I'll have to vote for him again because there is still the best choice. So being critical of Trump, doesn't mean one is a leftist.

    The only acceptable political ideology is the good of one's people. In the USA it's the good of the American people, in Israel it's the good of the Jewish people. Anything else is treason. This is why I voted for Trump. All this is very simple mates. Read Giuseppe Mazzini 'The Duties of Man' for starters and Jose Antonio Primo de Rivero.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So being critical of Trump, doesn't mean one is a leftist"

      Of course not, no one claimed otherwise. The D party accused anyone who criticized Obama of "racism"; therefore, they project their perverse thinking on the other party. Rs, of course, do not worship human beings, and do not think that way. The leftwing drift of Pr. Slifkin is not predicated merely on criticism of Pr. Trump, and predates his administration.

      Delete
  16. Can anyone think of any systematic oppression at any point in human history which was not justified by the aggressors as self-defence?

    From the Uighers to the Palestinians; from Godwin's law to the Holodomor; the Tibetans, Kashmiris, Irish and Catalans - the Cossacks and the Christians of Norwich who invented the blood libel - has anyone ever not claimed to be acting in self defence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Can anyone think of any systematic oppression at any point in human history which was not justified by the aggressors as self-defence?"

      Lol, that doesn't mean that sometimes they WERE justified as self defense! You know, like the U.S. defeating, occupying, and installing a new government in Japan after they attacked Pearl Harbor? (Although you probably side like the nuts who think the U.S. wanted Japan to attack PH as a pretext for war.)

      Hat, nothing you say is new. You use the same techniques as wackos like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, i.e. obsessively focusing on anecdotal incidents and conspiracy theories, while completely losing sight of the broader conflict (i.e., "Israel is wrong because an Israeli soldier once said something mean to Arab civilian in Chevron!"), along with a warped sense of moral equivalence.

      I would advise the commenters to not even bother responding to Hat . . .

      Delete
    2. Hat, not all your examples are valid, but this is how The Evolution works. This is the only path to victory.

      Delete
    3. Yakov: I really think as a species that we have evolved to less destructive ways of negotiating tribal differences, than, say, ants. Since Hiroshima, the inevitable logic of Darwinian struggle is mutually assured destruction.

      Delete
    4. Correction: the unspeakably horrendous occupation of the Congo by Belgium was justified not as self defence but as altruism.

      Delete
    5. Weaver, what is quite interesting is that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was also (due to the US oil embargo policy) justified as an act of self defence. And I'm sure the Americans believed their embargo was justified self defence was well. The conclusion I draw is that it is rather too easy to justify any act of aggression as defensive, and my threshold for accepting these claims is therefore high.

      Delete
    6. @ The Hat

      Wow - thank you perfectly illustrating my previous point! So you are equating the JAPANESE attack on Pearl Harbor which killed 2,403 U.S. personnel (including 68 civilians) because the U.S. decided to stop selling them oil for allying with Nazi Germany with the U.S. RESPONSE to this attack. Talk about a warped sense of moral equivalence.

      It's no wonder you can't decide whether Israel or Hamas is right. So sad.

      (Jeremy Corbyn, is that you?)

      Delete
    7. Weaver, no, that's a bad faith pearl clutch.

      I'm pointing out the prevalence of sincerely held but mistaken claims to self defence. I'm not denying that there are situations which are legitimately self defence.

      Delete
    8. @The Hat. The Japanese were invading China. I’m thinking that had something to do with the oil embargo. Acja

      Delete
    9. Oh, so the Hat is just a troll. Got it.

      Delete
    10. Sorry, Hat. You said that since many causes justify actions as self defense, you demand extraordinary evidence, including Japan in your example.

      So, do you think Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor an act of self defense or not? Your answer, or hesitation to answer, will speak volumes.

      Delete
    11. @Hat The conquest of the Americas by the Spanish and English as self defense ? The ancient Roman conquests as self defense ? The Viking conquests as self defense ? ACJA

      Delete
    12. I quoted the Japanese example as an example of the ubiquity of *spurious* claims to self defence.

      Delete
    13. @ Hat Funny how you came up with that only after I boxed you into a corner.

      You were very clearly playing the classic leftist "who am I to judge?" game.

      Delete
    14. @ Hat Anyway, with the US and Japan, I gave you another example of a reactive war followed by an occupation that was entirely morally justifiable.

      Delete
    15. Weaver, instead of congratulating yourself on your cleverness on "boxing me in a corner" you should be questioning what cognitive difficulties made it so hard for you to understand what was obviously my point from the first time I made it. Rage renders one inchoate, which may be a factor. Slow down, breathe, and respond to reality.

      Delete
    16. Lol, sorry - patronizing, trendy, academic psychobabble is not a substitute for an argument. Do try again.

      Delete
  17. Hat, as an example check this out:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungar_genocide

    Uigurs were settled in the lands of Jungars and had no problem doing so. Today they are a thereat to the Chinese state and are being dealt with accordingly. The Chinese emperor, who ordered the genocide, was a Confucian scholar and a philosopher, but the reality of a conflict that had no solution other then genocide of the enemy dictated his decision. As it says: על דעטפת אטפוך....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But I don't see how mass sterilisation and incarceration are even vaguely proportionate to the threat. I am informed from being part of a group such has been on the receiving end of hysterical irrational prejudice for millennia.

      Delete
    2. But prejudice is so often irrational and unfair. There is no New World Order conspiracy. There is no Jewish space laser. The Rothschild's don't control world affairs. Trump lost the election, and there are no secret tunnels under the white House for child trafficking. Jews don't bake Christian blood in matzas. The Poles didn't invaded a German radio station to start WW2.

      Delete
    3. Hat, the evolution doesn't care for what you or the woke crowd do or don't see.

      Delete
    4. Reposted to the correct thread:

      Yakov: I really think as a species that we have evolved to less destructive ways of negotiating tribal differences, than, say, ants. Since Hiroshima, the inevitable logic of Darwinian struggle is mutually assured destruction.

      Delete
    5. "I really think as a species that we have evolved to less destructive ways of negotiating tribal differences"

      That's hilarious. I imagine that very little exists for you outside your daled amot. It explains a lot, really.

      Delete
    6. The history since Hiroshima showed clearly that nothing has changed or will ever change. In Rwanda 800,000 were butchered in a 100 days. At this rate if slaughter it's 10 million in 4 years, 4 million more then the number of Jews in the Holocaust. The French kept supplying the Rwandan army, the State Department wouldn't call it a genocide, just that 'acts if genocide were taking place. Nobody helped the Yazidis and that with troops on the ground in a close proximity. Nobody is helping Uigurs and nobody will help the Jews if they are weak, even when it's easy to do. This is an Evolutionary struggle that has been with us since forever.

      Delete
    7. Yakov: this is an interesting read:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150811-do-animals-fight-wars

      I think it's obvious that tolerance and redifus hashalom is a survival characteristic. But it's far from a scientific question. I must be honest, and state that I see this as a deeply religious question.

      וְשָׁפַט֙ בֵּ֣ין הַגּוֹיִ֔ם וְהוֹכִ֖יחַ לְעַמִּ֣ים רַבִּ֑ים וְכִתְּת֨וּ חַרְבוֹתָ֜ם לְאִתִּ֗ים וַחֲנִיתֽוֹתֵיהֶם֙ לְמַזְמֵר֔וֹת לֹא־יִשָּׂ֨א ג֤וֹי אֶל־גּוֹי֙ חֶ֔רֶב וְלֹֽא־יִלְמְד֥וּ ע֖וֹד מִלְחָמָֽה

      Delete
    8. Hat, the prophets speak about what is desirable, proper and how the thing should be, not about how the world actually operates.

      That the human evolution isn't just a dog eats dog world has been noted. Read
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution. But on the national level people actions are driven by self-interest. No one should expect altruistic help. If a nation cannot defend itself - it's doomed.

      Delete
    9. I think a major goal of the Jewish religion is to move in the direction of what is desirable, proper and how it should be, even on a national and practical level?

      Delete
    10. It commands us to exterminated the seven nations of Canaan and Amalek as something desirable and proper. It also gives us reasons why it is so.

      Delete
  18. For some reason, I was looking at TIME magazine of 1957, and I found the following letter printed:

    Sir:

    Wasn't David lucky that there existed no U.N. in his days? He might have been punished for having stood up to Goliath.

    EUGENIA F. BELKINE Jerusalem

    I thought it was apropos,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a good example of the struggle we have to think objectively rather than tribally about who is objectively the under-dog.

      Why would Israel's position correspond better with David then Goliath? Normally there's a rush to conflate the wider Arab world / Iran with the Palestinians, but before we make that weak argument, was it really what you meant and thought? Or did you genuinely believe that the Palestinians in isolation were a Goliath to Israel's David?

      My thesis is that ingroup/ outgroup cognitive biases really make Israelis feel a genuine (but objectively unfounded) existential self defence situation threat.

      Delete
    2. Reminds me of Efraim Kishon's and Dosh's book "סליחה שניצחנו" (Sorry We Won), which collects Israeli cartoonist Dosh's political cartoons from before, during and immediately after the Six Day War, together with political satire writings from Kishon related to the war. Besides for the name of the book, there's one piece there by Kishon in which he explains why it was totally not fair that David defeated Goliath...

      Delete
    3. Hatter - That letter was written in 1957, when Israel was at war with most of the Arab world.

      Delete
    4. Zichron Devorim: and was requoted on the first day of July 2021 with the comment "I thought it was apropos"

      Delete
  19. Miriam PruzanskyJuly 2, 2021 at 6:36 PM

    The Hat - there has also never been a self-hating jew in history who didn't disguise his kapo tendencies under the guise of some moralistic crusade. Let the poor Arabs of Hebron move to Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries that their brethren live in. As a matter of fact, we can start by having a few of them move in to your home so that you can get a better first hand look at the people with whom your sympathies lie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only cure is to slow and deepen the breathing, stop shouting, and remove the hands you've clasped so rigidly in from of your eyes and see what is in front of your own nose. As George Orwell said, it requires great effort.

      I wouldn't like foreigners moving into my house. No foreigners are moving into the Jewish houses in West Bank are they. Yet over 4,000 mapping operations were carried out between midnight and 5 a.m. by the foreign military occupiers in the 2018 calendar year. Kids are removed from their bed and photographed by soldiers. No Jew has to live with Arabs in their home.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, we Jews in Israel just have to live under the constant threat of being blown up on buses, in restaurants, in markets...we have plenty of Arabs in our "home." So now I'm thinking that you are either:

      a) A troll.

      b) Someone who's never actually visited Israel.

      c) Someone hopelessly naive and uninformed.

      or

      d) All of the above.

      Delete
    3. Are you purposely missing her point?

      Delete
    4. Miriam, Would you include the followers of Zaid Jabari among those you would move to Saudi Arabia?

      Hat, There are legitimate military reasons for mapping operations, such as being prepared to arrest an operation that Intelligence subsequently locates in a particular house.

      As to taking children out of their beds, what's your source? I'm familiar with BtS's MO of accepting any allegation of being part of such an action without any attempt at corroboration. Simply put, as their spokesperson Avner Gvaryahu said, their objective is not to end the human rights abuse, but to end the occupation. Allegations, such as what you quote, help further that cause, but only if they're not exposed as false. Checking if they are accurate risks falsifying them, thus endangering their utility to the real cause.

      Delete
    5. What we have here is a difference in the understanding of the word Kapo.

      1) Someone who sides with system, abets authoritarians and assists with oppression.

      2) Someone who sides with someone other than their own racial group, be they right or wrong.

      I don't think it's constructive to use antisemitic language about settlers without provocation, but I think hear it is fair to ask them to reflect about the choice of language they use.

      Delete
    6. Sar Shalom: https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-to-significantly-limit-controversial-west-bank-home-mapping-operations/ quoting defence official corroborates these claims.

      If there are security reasons to do this, why do they cease to apply now?

      And if there are no children who are woken up, how would soldiers carry out their stated mission of collecting information on the residents of the building?

      This refusal to engage with clear evidence is irrational. If you wish to dispute Palestinian eyewitness testimony, corroborate your disputation.

      Delete
  20. Miriam PruzanskyJuly 6, 2021 at 11:18 AM

    Sar Shalom, I would not actually be moving anyone to Saudi Arabia - what I actually wrote was that the poor oppressed Arabs of Hebron can move elsewhere.

    Hat - we have way bigger differences than how we define kapo. One of us is a smug, self satisfied pseudo-intellectual who has (in the poetic words of chazal) "the mercy of fools" towards our enemies. Who has the audacity to malign Baruch Marzel and those like him who courageously do more for the Jewish people in an hour than you have done in your entire life. The other one is just a realist who understands the openly stated goals and mentality of our enemies for what they are - rather than through the lens of of the NY times op-ed pages.

    And of all the intellectually dishonest things that you write (of which there are many), perhaps one of the most glaring is the ridiculous notion that I (or any of the "settlers" or their supporters) can be categorized as "someone who sides with someone other than their own racial group, be they right or wrong." Since you seem blissfully unaware of the reality, let me enlighten you to the fact that there are many divergent views among the Jewish racial group in Israel regarding the Israel-Arab conflict and the "settlers" are constantly needing to push back against members of the erev rav such as yourself and more often than not don't have their own government siding with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is Marzel being maligned by... his own actions?

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Marzel#Legal_Issues

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PsQfdwpEbMk

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_fsusHX_YIo

      You've said there are divergent views. It seems to me that anyone who expresses facts which hurt your feelings is called 'Erev Rav' and 'Kapo'.

      Do you have the courage to express a divergent view from racism?

      Delete
    2. You write about the poor oppressed Arabs of Hebron. Would that include the followers of Ziad Jabari? Would you allow them to stay or force them out?

      Delete
    3. Commenter The Hat: "Do you have the courage to express a divergent view from racism?"

      Among the many stupid things you say regularly, this must be among the most ignorant. It doesn't take any courage at all to oppose racism. Any idiot can do it, and in fact, they all do. Show me someone who stands up and says the truth - now that's courage.

      Delete
    4. I've no idea who Mr Jabari is and Google isn't helping. Would you indulge me? I assume he's not living in a Jewish neighborhood to harass Jewish residents while under the protection of a state military occupation force?

      Delete
    5. Miriam PruzanskyJuly 7, 2021 at 12:26 PM

      I'm opposed to racism but only if that's defined as treating people differently than others based on their religion, ethnicity, skin color or the like. When it becomes a made-up term to try and hamper people's right to self defense than it doesn't deserve the dignity of a response. (Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

      There are no facts that hurt my feelings but cherry picking mostly irrelevant facts to distort the truth at the expense of the Jewish nation makes you not much better than the worst of the self-hating jews we've had among us throughout our history. If that hurts YOUR feelings, maybe it's time to look inward and ask yourself what made you feel like it was necessary to align yourself with our enemies.

      Delete
    6. Hi Miriam,

      I find this video showing a Chevron Jewish woman assaulting an Arab neighbor on her doorstep, attempting to lock her up in her own house, and calling her a 'sharmuttah' factually compelling.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXSFsJV084

      I'm clear whose side I'm on. Whose side are you on?

      If you are yourself suffering from domestic violence problems, which I understand are common in the patriarchal settler community wedded to violence you can contact https://no2violence.co.il/en/about-us/ I can assure you that being concerned about the dignity of all women is not a red flag as regards my own conduct, and I will add 'wife beater' to 'kapo' and 'hated Jews' as terms of abuse you use about me which would clearly be more apposite in connection to yourself.

      Delete
    7. Zaid Jabari is the sort of Palestinian with whom Israel could negotiate a sharing of the disputed territories. Examples of his activities include preventing an Arab/Israeli leftists alliance from burning down a synagogue outside Kiryat Arba and hosting a gathering of Jews, including residents of Hebron, in his tent during the week of Parshat Chaye Sarah.

      You can read more about Sheikh Jabari's clan at https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/11/moderate-sheikh-of-hebron.html . The question to Miriam is if she would let him and his followers stay. To Hat, I would say that Jabari is proof that if complaints about the activities of Marzel and others like him are genuine attempts to redress such wrongdoers and not a smokescreen for the ulterior motive of making the birthplace of Jewish civilization judenrein, an accommodation can be reached.

      Delete
    8. Hat: "I find this video showing a Chevron Jewish woman assaulting..."

      By itself, that is by no means a contradiction of Miriam's characterization of you as cherry picking facts to distort the truth. The question is how often do those events occur and what portion of the settler community supports those who commit those acts.

      I would like to end that behavior as much as you do. If all you did was call for stronger action against such perpetrators, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you. However, you use such events as an instrument for a broader agenda. That agenda is that the PNM should have the right to bar all people it finds undesirable from the River to the Green Line, which means that if the PNM wants the entire area judenrein, it should all be judenrein.

      "I'm clear whose side I'm on."

      The problem is that you're categorizing everyone into one of two categories. Either someone is among the righteous who supports the right of the PNM to make any land it desires judenrein or he is a racist land grabber who supports the likes of Boruch Marzel.

      Delete
    9. Firstly I am glad that we have found agreement that these aspects of the occupation - enabled by the presence of the military nearby - are completely wrong. The legal framework of the occupation is that the soldier may not arrest the aggressors, and can only arrest the victims.

      -

      You maintain that these incidents are rare in Chevron. Anyone attentive to the mentality of the settlers of Chevron would know that they are not, and that any Jew who was not a violent fanatic would be violently expelled from that community.

      The biggest proof I can give to this is that in the nearby town of Kiryat Arba is a shrine dedicated to the memory of the terrorist Boruch Goldstein. That is a public monument in a public space. It speaks to the mentality of the Kahanaists wingnuts.

      I have also provided multiple examples of my settler arrogance and racism. You only have to read this blog to see evidence of many examples of commentators espousing racism and glorification of violence.

      Your tactic of repeatedly and in bad faith demanding proof of facts you know to be true is vexatious. Every time you have denied reality you have been proven wrong. Maybe it's time you pulled your head out the and and engaged in good faith rather than reflexively defensively.

      -

      I have always accepted that the Jews of Chevron (and a few other places like Kfar Tapuach) are different from the Jews of commuter towns like Ramot. Could you demonstrate anywhere where you deployed any of that nuance?

      Nuance is demanded of those of us who oppose the occupation, but the original article was a clumsy conflation of the entire civil and military occupation, Marzel and all, on the grounds of security.

      -

      Your use of Nazi language to attack me as a Jew is unacceptable and anti-Semitic as you are targeting me as a Jew and descendent of survivors with this particular accusation. Calling other Jews you disagree with Nazis is ugly and shameful.

      -

      Who the Palestinians let into their future state is a matter for them legally, but it's right morally that Jewish visitors and Jewish citizens of an Arab majority Palestine should be respected.

      Delete
    10. See Sar Shalom I told you that you'd hurt his feelings. Meanwhile he's yet to answer (this is the 3rd or 4th time) if he also thinks that Abba Eban was being anti-semitic by use of terms such as Auschwitz borders (along with Bibi and many others).

      Delete
    11. I think you started you knew what the answer is regarding Bibi. He, and certainly his son, are very comfortable using anti-Semitic language.

      When Abba Eban (whose remarks trivialised the Holocaust but were not intended to be anti-Semitic) accuse other Jews of acting like the Nazis did, get back to me.

      Delete
  21. Sheikh Jabari sounds to me very much like a Palestinian neturei karta. NK oppose a Jewish state; Jabari is quoted as opposing a Palestinian one. Insofar as this is actually a fair reflection of his actual views they strike me as fringe and extreme but tolerable as long as they do not involve violence.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Careful there Sar Shalom. The Hat is going to be really triggered by you using the phrase Judenrein (multiple times mind you). See he really gets upset about people using such language even though he kind of likes to promote the actual implementation of such policies. So please in order to be considerate of The Hat, please try to find another more palatable term to use for clearing out all Jews from a given geographic area.

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

Shaken By The Lulav

There are many aspects of Judaism which make people feel uncomfortable. The mitzvah of arba minim sometimes falls into that category. Shak...