Thursday, August 25, 2022

Zionist Detachment From Reality

In the past, I've written extensively about how "pro-peace" people who want Israel to give the Palestinians a state in Judea and Samaria are in denial of reality. A negotiated peace settlement will never happen, because the Palestinian leadership is just not interested in it. A unilateral withdrawal will just result in another failed terror-state that will attack Israel, and against which Israel will face international condemnation when it defends itself. And peace between the populations will never happen, since the Palestinians are collectively in denial of the Jewish historical attachment to the land and thus simply see us as European colonialists who stole their land, while some Jews believe that no Palestinians have a right to live here unless they swear allegiance to Israel.

But much of the right-wing Zionist camp is also in denial of reality.

An article in the Jerusalem Post relates that maps of Israel were created for schools by the Tel-Aviv Municipality which include a dotted line showing the distinction between Gaza, Judea and Samaria and Israel proper. But the Education Ministry, along with the Council of Settlements and religious Zionist schools, strongly opposed them. "Students from the schools in Efrat will visit Tel Aviv during the coming school year, even though the mayor of Tel Aviv doesn't like us that much, it turns out, or sees us as not legitimate residents of Israel," said council head Oded Ravivi.

What a bizarre and disturbing detachment from reality. The dotted line simply serves to teach the political and legal reality. Judea and Samaria are certainly part of Eretz Yisrael. And in many ways they are de facto part of the State of Israel. But they are not legally part of the State of Israel. That's just a plain fact. 

And it's not just a fact according to the UN or a similarly Judeopathic body; it's according to every government of Israel that has ever existed, including all the right-wing ones. Unlike the Golan, which was annexed by Israel, Judea and Samaria were never annexed. Doing so would result in the serious problem of not giving its Palestinian inhabitants the same legal rights as every other citizen of Israel.

In fact, it's precisely the fact that these areas are not legally part of the State of Israel that the Likud, Smotrich and the charedi parties took advantage of to blackmail the present government into collapsing. They threatened not to renew the temporary legislation that extends Israeli law to Israelis living in those areas. And Bibi certainly has no plans to annex Judea and Samaria.

I saw a number of people complaining about this map and pointing out that Palestinians frequently put out maps declaring all Israel to be Palestine. I much confess that I do not understand this argument. Even though the Palestinians are dishonest, surely we should avoid doing the same? Otherwise, how can we possibly claim to have the high ground in saying that they are dishonest in their claims?

The situation with Judea and Samaria is a mess. It's currently a problem without a solution. We can't just give it to the Palestinians, because that would result in catastrophe. But on the other hand, we haven't said that it's fully and permanently ours - and nor can we do so, because that would also result in catastrophe. In the absence of a better alternative, we are simply managing the current situation as best we can until a solution miraculously appears or somehow develops. (It's not unthinkable for such a messy situation to exist - there are all kinds of territorial disputes, military occupations and stateless nations around the world.)

But it doesn't help for either side to be in denial of reality.

159 comments:

  1. The law was not renewed. It got an automatic six month extension on the dissolution of the Knesset. The right took a big gamble in pursuing this gambit, because there won't be a further extension past 31/12 I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rabbi Slifkin and interested readers, I highly recommend the book "מלכוד 67 " by Dr. Micha Goodman on this subject. He presents a well researched and referenced, balanced, thoughtful and nuanced approach to the status of the west bank/yehuda v'shomron, but moreso, insight into how Israelis, in each part of the spectrum have come to regard it given their respective history and philosophical outlook. Including, most interestingly to the readers of this blog, the religious-zionist camp (which in 1948/67 included many of who would be labeled 'chareidi' today). It's a fascinating insightful read regarding the catch we've become entrapped in.
    It's originally in hebrew but there is an english translation and even an english narration on Audible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am a tax paying Israeli who lives in the Shomron. I live in Israel. Not in no-man’s land. This once was Jordan but they lost their land to Israel in the 6-day war. How is any of this delusional?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You live on land colloquially know as Israel, but which is legally not annexed by Israel. So you aren't being delusional. Merely deliberately ignorant.

      Delete
    2. I don't think anyone denies that there are Israelis living in Shomron. But annexation didn't take place, and although we consider it as part of Israel in some ways, it doesn't make it a legal and bureaucratic reality. Why it doesn't happen is a different question.

      Delete
  4. "because that would also result in catastrophe"

    Please explain why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's only catastrophic for people with moral aversion to discrimination. Ben gvir (and maybe bibi too) have no problem annexing the land without giving voting rights to all inhabitants of that territory

      Delete
    2. The fact that you could include Bibi- a man who clearly doesn't want to annex the land- in there shows that you- I apologize- don't know the facts.

      You can't just say "Ben-Gvir" and consider the argument settled.

      My religion, and I assume yours, believes in "discrimination." So does Israeli law. So please start again.

      Delete
    3. Has annexing the Golan Heights resulted in catastrophe? What about bombing the Iraq nuclear reactor? Or moving the embassy to Jerusalem?
      All these items were supposedly disasters, and each one of them has been a blessing. Annexing Yesha once and for all would be the same. They should do it on day 1 after the mid-terms.

      Delete
    4. "My religion believes in discrimination."

      Delete
    5. "no problem annexing the land without giving voting rights to all inhabitants of that territory"

      If the residents of the annexed area don't get citizenship and voting rights, it isn't an annexation.

      "Has annexing the Golan Heights resulted in catastrophe?"

      It wasn't an annexation, for the reason just stated.

      Delete
    6. Are you being deliberately obtuse? There are millions of Arabs in the west bank. What are we going to do with them? Give them citizenship and have them vote for our own destruction? Maybe just pay them hundreds of billions a month in welfare?
      Or should we officially have the policy that we are not a democracy and only jewd can vote?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous, did we have the "right" to bomb a reactor on another country's soil?
      Grow up! Israel had no problem excluding R. Meir Kahane, without losing its democracy standing. In the US, in many areas convicted felons cant vote even after release. You can make voting conditional upon recognizing the Jewish character of the state, or some other mechanism. There are lots of ways, but fundamental is you don't worry about these things. Go read your history about how Israel came into being, and learn what they the founding fathers thought about "legal".

      Delete
    8. @Nachum, there is no real distinction between bibi / likud voters and ben gvir / otzma voters anymore, other than the fact that bibi still feels a bit of shame about inviting the racists and homophobes in. So he brokered the deal with Ben gvir and smotrich but avoided the photo op. They are totally in bed together. It's not the likud of yesteryear anymore.

      And yes. It's fair to point out that neither likud voters or Ben gvir voters are ok with taking over territory but not giving all the inhabitants the vote. If you think I'm wrong then I suggest you read the other commentators on this blog post.

      Delete
    9. Ooh, racist and homophobic? Looks like you win the argument.

      Delete
    10. My last paragraph was badly written. It should have said:
      "It's fair to point out that BOTH likud voters or Ben gvir voters are ok with taking over territory but not giving all the inhabitants the vote. If you think I'm wrong then I suggest you read the other commentators on this blog post

      Delete
    11. Nahum is out and proud about his racism and homophobia. On the internet.

      He wet himself when I reminded him he was using his personal Facebook linked to his professional career to spread hate on the Times of Israel website.

      He also claims nobody wants peace more than him. And it's true. For an avowed violent racist he is whimpering pathos in real life. It's only when posting online that he finds his bravado.

      Delete
    12. The moment someone mentions the words racist (or any of its cousins) you know he's not a serious person worth talking to.

      There's no issue of "morals" with annexing and either denying citizenship outright or making citizenship contingent on something unpalatable. The historical precedent abounds. It's only a question of guts and intestinal fortitude. Because the anti-semites of the world, and the historically ignorant of all people including Jews, will certainly *claim* its immoral. Begin, for the most part, didnt care about such people, he cared only about what was right for Jews. He had the courage to go with his gut. Bibi's been a great PM in many ways, less so in other ways, but he certainly doesn't have that intestinal fortitude.

      Delete
    13. Goodwin's law has radically expanded. Apparently now it's passe to demand universal human dignity regardless of race.

      I suppose it is sad when Israel's apologists have given up defending the notion that Israel was the only democracy in the Western world. These apologists have all gone full Putin.

      Might is Right. People who remember what the Gentiles did to the Jews on the basis of the exact same ideals are not worth talking to.

      Delete
    14. "He wet himself when I reminded him he was using his personal Facebook linked to his professional career to spread hate on the Times of Israel website."

      Wow, you Woke are really sick in your attempts to destroy people. And sick in your memories.

      Which happens not to be to good here, as I keep my Facebook presence very separate from my career. So keep trying to get your sick jollies and keep using filthy language, and keep making up stories.

      I say to the guess who's too much of a coward to even use his first name here, let alone his full identity.

      Delete
    15. ...Accuses me of making up stories of quite how pathetically tremulous he was to learn that he used his personal facebook (on which he chose to disclose that he is an attorney practicing in Gush Dan) to spread hate online.

      ... Displays further timorous terror at the very memory, thereby confirming the veracity of the account.

      Why aren't you in the hills of the West Bank, Mr Attorney, fighting the bad fight, with a herd of goats? Not quite consistent with your chosen career, perhaps?

      Delete
    16. "I am an attorney practicing in Gush Dan"? I'm a lawyer working for a tech company in Tel Aviv. Try harder, little Stasi-agent-wannabe hiding behind your cute little pseudonym.

      One of the self-righteous little twerps trying to destroy YU over a gay club (who's not even gay himself), when asked a question by me on the Facebook, actually dug up a letter (paper copy!) I wrote to the YU student newspaper about Baruch Goldstein almost *three decades* earlier. These people are bizarre.

      Ah, now it clicks: "The Hat" is, in fact, Doniel (sic) Weinreich, who threatened me earlier. It all falls into place. Gays, check. Palestinians, check. Ah.

      Delete
    17. Confirmation bias much? Believe what you like.

      Typically for a Boomer, your tech savvy startup skills in keeping your professional life separate from your online hate addiction are about as good as your detective skills.

      I use British spelling and reference UK matters.

      You have nobody to blame for outing yourself as an online hate troll addict apart from yourself. I've told you before that your behaviour online is an embarrassment to yourself in real life, your colleagues, and your family and you should get help.

      Delete
    18. I'm not a boomer, barely tech savvy, and have no startup skills. Keep projecting about being an embarrassment (I imagine your family and colleagues must be very kind people and very skilled actors), and keep fantasizing about everything else.

      Delete
  5. I do stress that I agree with your point. If right-wingers have a complaint, they should lay it at the feet of Bibi Netanyahu, not Ron Huldai.

    I should point out, however, that official Israeli maps have always included the territories, like it or not. Huldai is breaking from tradition, so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Israeli government is also not interested in negotiating a settlement, as long as the alternative is essentially a cost-free occupation (funded by the Europeans, enforced mainly by the PA, and backed internationally by the US - Norman Finkelstein). If the world treated Israel like apartheid South Africa (fair or not), I imagine a magical solution would be found pretty quickly. So emphasis on "current situation." In other scenarios unilateral withdrawal would seem an attractive option.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You write as if you'd prefer that, Hashem Yerachem.

      Delete
    2. "...as long as the alternative is..."
      Alternative to what?

      Delete
    3. I'd prefer the settlers and their supporters get out of la-la land. I'm not optimistic.

      Delete
    4. "unilateral withdrawal would seem an attractive option"

      Been there, done that. (Gaza)

      Delete
    5. Tell me, Isaac, where do you happen to "settle"?

      Delete
    6. "I'd prefer the settlers and their supporters get out of la-la land. I'm not optimistic"
      We forcibly removed them from Gaza. That didn't seem to accomplish much.
      From previous conversations here, it seems that people who support removing the settlers and the settlements know full well that it won't bring peace, considering Palestinian rhetoric. But that they have to do something, so it might as well be that.

      Delete
    7. " If the world treated Israel like apartheid South Africa (fair or not), I imagine a magical solution would be found pretty quickly."

      Probably the magical solution where Israel withdraws from the West Bank, Hamas takes over, rockets start falling on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem every day, Israel has to reoccupy parts of the West Bank, and massive numbers of both Israelis and Palestinians die compared to the current situation.

      But you know, some people prefer things like this, they are willing to get Palestinians killed if necessary to get Israelis killed.

      Delete
    8. Separating from the Palestinians is in Israel's best interests, despite the nonsense that the settlers and their ilk eject from their mouths. I have yet to hear an actual solution from these morons as to how they plan to have a Jewish state from the river to the sea.
      And yes, one day the world might force Israel to do it.

      Delete
    9. You have yet to hear because you don't want to hear.

      Delete
    10. Isaac and Nachum, there isn't a solution at the moment. Prologing the current situation isn't doing either side any good. But until the Palestinians are willing to give up terror then we are both stuck with it. There's no point Israel making any more concessions at this point, but similarly, there's no point annexing the land with a population living on it that we want to absorb. So we are stuck with the status quo, which erodes our morality over time (see the hilltop youth for details). Israel can work to create an international concensus that pushes the Palestinians into making some serious changes in their behavior - and this seems to be the current thinking of the Israeli government. Ultimately, Golda Meir was correct. As long as they hate u more than they love their children, we are going to carry on much as we are today. And frankly, Israel can live with it.

      Delete
    11. Civilian settlement (historic legitimate justifications notwithstanding) has nothing to do with security. Military presence does. The two are not the same, despite the consistent disingenuous conflation by the RW.

      Delete
    12. This has been called the Nirvana fallacy. We can't make things perfect, so therefore we won't make anything better.

      A very modest suggestion. Ban Marzel from the West Bank. Do it today. It will make the world a better place.

      Delete
    13. It's a matter of ripping off band-aids. It hurts when you do it, but a short while later you're fine. The strong ones get it over with. The weaker ones are so afraid of a little pain, they'd rather let the thing hang around and deteriorate and fester.

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. Ah, birds of a feather.

      Delete
    2. Well, I don't profess to be familiar enough with this topic to be provocative. So I will have to leave it to others. But hey, if posting a good comment just means calling people names, as some people seem to think it does, I guess I can join the fray!

      Delete
    3. Ah, so we have an admission that you're not here to debate but to be "provocative." Got it.

      I blame the yeshiva system. I've seen enough bochrim unable to accept the premise of a simple mussar shmooze without making endless chakiras in debate. Just because.

      Delete
    4. Ah, but they don't teach us how to think. Got it.

      Delete
  8. "Unlike the Golan, which was annexed by Israel, Judea and Samaria were never annexed."

    And even the annexation of the Golan and East Jerusalem were not valid annexations because they did not automatically make all the residents there into Israeli citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Valid under whose terms? Yours? The UN?

      Delete
    2. About the Golan, don't they have the option to become Israeli citizens when they want to? I have met several people, Druzes, who didn't want to become citizens because that would mean they or their future kids would have to enlist in the army. And voting wasn't deemed worth it compared to military service. But it sounded like it was their choice.

      I would like it if you could explain the situation in East Jerusalem. Are the people living there who want to become citizens denied? Do they have to go through the same process as anyone who lives in Israel or is it more, or less, complicated?

      Delete
    3. Charlie - Israel did not automatically make the residents citizens because many feared for their lives from Arab revenge attacks. They can get citizenship very easily by filling out a form. So you can either blame Israel for "breaking international law"...or appreciate their concern for life.

      Delete
    4. "Valid under whose terms?"

      Interenational precedent dating back to the early middle ages. When one country conquered an area of another country, The loyalty of the residents automatically transferred to the conquering country whether they liked it or not.

      For more recent examples, see the following list:

      The conquest and annexation by the Ottoman Empire of Syria, the Land of Israel, and Egypt from the Mamluks in 1516 -1517.
      .
      The Annexation of Wales by England 1536-1542. Wales had been ruled by England sinice the 13th century but had been denied representation in the English Parliament.

      The conquest and annexation of Calais by France in 1558. (It had been English since 1360 and had sent representatives to the English Parlament.)

      The Act of Union in 1707 by which Scotland was effectively annexed by England and sent representatives to what became known as the British, not English, parliament. The Scottish Parliament ceased to exist.

      A similar Act of Union in 1801 for Ireland.

      The annexation of Savoy and Nice by France in 1860.

      The annexation of Alsace and Lorraine by Germany in 1871.

      The annexation of Bosnia by Austria-Hungary in 1908.

      And nine annexations by the United Staes in the 18th-19th centuries:

      Annexation of the Vermont Republic (1791)
      Louisiana Purchase (1803)
      Florida Purchase and Louisiana boundary adjustment (1819)
      Texas annexation (1846)
      Oregon annexation (1846)
      Mexican cession (1848) (Even Mexicans who had been fighting against the US just months earlier became US citizens automatically.)
      Gadsden purchase (1853)
      Alaska purchase (1867)
      Hawaii annexation (1898)

      (Note that three of these were annexations of independent countries that immediately ceased to exist.)

      "don't they have the option"

      The citizenship can't be optional. It has to be mandatory.

      "because"

      Because is irrelevant.

      "breaking international law"

      It isn't a breaking international law, it is just that East Jerusalem and the Golan are not part of Medinat Yisrael.

      The Israeli government probably realized that becaue the term "annex" was not used in the legislation that fixed the status of the areas.

      Delete
    5. No, citizenship does not have to be mandatory. It might be moral for all residents of a state to be citizens of that state, but it's not legally required.

      For example, the US annexed Texas and did not grant citizenship to the slaves located there. Not the most pleasant example, but it proves the legal point.

      Delete
    6. Charlie, if we're going to start listing historical events, I refer you to the chapter in Meir Kahane's book "They Must Go" where he lists all the population transfers that took place in the last century, many of them involving tens of millions of people, people who had lived in their lands since time immemorial, transfers fully approved of and actually carried out by the same international bodies who condemn Israel if it dares to deport one terrorist to Lebanon.

      Modern day Poland is at least half what was Germany since forever until 1945. Not a single German lives there now. There's not a single Hindu in Pakistan or Bangladesh, and a lot less Muslims in India than there used to be. No Japanese in their northern islands. Not a peep from the world- indeed, these were seen as good things. There's not a single Turk in southern Cyprus and not a single Greek in the north. For some reason we never see Cyprus in the news.

      But no, Israel is different. Thanks in no small part to Jews who think we have to be.

      Delete
    7. When your history teacher is Meir Kahane...

      These are all half truths at best. Not a single of your 'not a single' lines is actually true, far from it, and none of those transfers happened the way of Kahane's plans.
      Some bear similarities to the 1948 arab exodus, true. No more than that.

      Delete
    8. @Nachum, it always makes me feel good (not) to see Religious Zionists being happy for Israel to be playing in the dirtiest league ("If it's OK for another country to commit crimes, then why should we Jews feel bad about doing it, right?"). Strangely, it's often those same RZ Jews who ascribe to a "goyim are bad, Jews are good" view. Or those who think that Israel is somehow a more moral ethnic group.)

      Delete
    9. Yeah, Jew Well, they didn't happen the way Kahane would have wanted. They were a lot bloodier.

      not a fan, be honest, it makes you happy because it validates you.

      Delete
    10. A lot bloodier than what didn't happen, sure thing.

      Delete
    11. Also, don't make me quote Hitler again.

      Delete
    12. Not a fan, didnt you admit you were a big fan of Golda Meir? Well she may have been a terrible prime minister, but the one thing she got right was saying Israel was not going to lie down and let its enemies walk all over us, so "the world" can say how honorable we were in battle. If you want to quote her for anything, use that.

      Here's another quote: "If your enemy comes to smite you, turn to him the other cheek also." Is that a Jewish concept?

      Delete
  9. To quote ben shapiro : facts don’t care about your feelings

    Nice write up

    Do define judeopathic

    Did you make it up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "To quote ben shapiro : facts don’t care about your feelings"
      Facts don't care about anything.

      Delete
  10. Once again Rabbi Slifkin, I am impressed with your integrity and intellectual openness and your ability to present rational views despite their unpopularity!

    Might you consider adopting the hashkafos of a similar rationalist yet controversial Jew - .Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l? Perhaps the post-Zionist era in which we are living validates his skeptical attitude toward Zionism which you apparently express, albeit mildly? Just a thought from a long time fan of yours :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leibowitz wasn't at all skeptical towards Zionism, he just had different expectations of what the purpose of the state was than other religious Jews.

      Delete
    2. "Might you consider adopting the hashkafos of a similar rationalist yet controversial Jew - .Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l? "

      I think I was the first commenter to be מכוון to this. Yes, Rabbi Slifkin's hashkafos fit very well with Leibowitz's, I would dare say they are almost identical. Not sure about the "Judeo-Nazi" part though, I don't think Rabbi Slifkin would go for that! 😂

      Delete
    3. You mean he should become bitter, hateful, and a halakhic extremist?

      Delete
    4. "Yes, Rabbi Slifkin's hashkafos fit very well with Leibowitz's"

      No they don't. Not at all. You clearly frequent this blog, so you either have the reading comprehension skills of a 3 year old or you've never read Leibowitz. Or both.

      Delete
    5. "No they don't."

      Yes they do, certainly in their attitude towards the Torah, but not towards the state.

      Delete
    6. I'll suffice with a snippet from one of RNS's main posts:

      "Rationalists understand the purpose of mitzvos and one’s religious life in general as furthering intellectual and/or moral goals for the individual and society."

      Anyone who's briefly glanced through a Leibowitz essay would be in hysterics at the thought of him remotely agreeing with this.
      I could go on an on, but as you clearly have no idea what on earth you're talking about (as usual), I won't bother.

      Delete
    7. "Rationalists understand the purpose of mitzvos and one’s religious life in general as furthering intellectual and/or moral goals for the individual and society."

      When his his intellect and morals are exclusively informed by secular society, and he is willing to change the Torah to conform with whatever secular morals they dreamed up five minutes ago, there is no practical difference. See this

      http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2014/09/who-doesnt-adopt-modern-values.html

      Delete
    8. "willing to change the Torah to conform with whatever secular morals they dreamed up five minutes ago"

      You're just highlighting your ignorance. A statement like that doesn't make any sense when discussing YL.
      Word of advice: don't try and discuss things you clearly don't understand.
      This applies to the other blog post as well, so that I don't have to waste my time responding to your uneducated nonsense in two different places.

      Delete
    9. " A statement like that doesn't make any sense when discussing YL...Word of advice: don't try and discuss things you clearly don't understand. This applies to the other blog post as well"

      Ah, this just means you don't have any arguments. That's ok, I understand it's hard for you to admit you are wrong. Been there, done that. Word of advice: Go outside, breath some fresh air, do something productive for a change, and then you'll feel better and you can come back admit your error with a fresh mind. There's always another tomorrow! 🌦️☀️🌈

      Delete
    10. Isaac, when it comes to Happy, you really have to spell out why he is wrong. He genuinely doesn't understand things.
      Happy, YL thought that you had to obey the mitzvot regardless of reason. So, the idea that you lump YL and RNS together because you think they both are willing to adapt mitzvot due to rationalist concerns, shows that you are, unsurprisingly, wrong (again).
      Isaac, I can totally understand why you don't continue talking to Happy. It's a totally rational response just to ignore him; as you would quickly stop talking to someone, for example, who proclaimed that current scientific thinking was that the world is flat. It's just not worth the effort.

      Delete
    11. not a fan,
      The blogger, to his credit, also thinks he has to obey all the mitzvos (mostly) regardless of reason:

      http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2022/08/who-is-safeguarding-traditional-judaism.html

      starting from "In general...". Like YL who also thought that, except when he didn't. But like YL, he doesn't see the Torah as a source of morals or truth about anything. The reason to keep mitzvos is a personal decision. Which matches exactly this line from YL.

      ראובן רוצה בעוגה עם קצפת מתוקה. שמעון מואס בה. לוי שואף להשליט את הצדק בעולם. יהודה שואף להשליט את הכח בעולם. יששכר רוצה להיות אלוף העולם באגרופנות ואינו מעוניין בארכאולוגיה. גד חושק בחנה ומואס בפנינה. אשר חושק בפנינה ומואס בחנה. פלוני מקבל עליו עול תורה ומצוות ואלמוני דוחה מעליו עול זה.

      About your other statement, I have this to say- blah. blah. blah.

      Delete
    12. Fair enough, I'll follow not a fan's directive and try to make this simple. The central tenet of Leibowitz's religious philosophy is "lishma vs lo lishma." Lishma according to YL means that the religious act is prior to human needs or values.

      RNS:
      "Rationalists understand the purpose of mitzvos and one’s religious life in general as furthering intellectual and/or moral goals for the individual and society."

      This is what YL would call very much "LO LISHMA." I capitalize for emphasis. You can hardly get more LO LISHMA than this. In contrast to this, YL:
      "[mitzvot are] meaningless except as expressions of worship. They have no utility in terms of satisfaction of human needs”

      Lots more to be said, but I will suffice with one more snippet:
      http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2016/05/the-greatest-miracle.html
      "God performed one of the greatest miracles in history, to our immense benefit - how can we not celebrate it?"

      I'll let you guess who said this:
      "God did not reveal himself in nature or in history"


      Delete
    13. "Yes, Rabbi Slifkin's hashkafos fit very well with Leibowitz's, I would dare say they are almost identical. "

      To echo others: No. YL held rationalism to be tantamount to עבודה זרה. He had a very fanatical and weird world-view.

      Delete
  11. It's not enough to say we're trapped and stuck in a difficult situation, which indeed is the case.
    We have to work towards finding solutions. The israeli successive governments prefer lying to the world and to their own citizens, and profit from the situation, making things worse and worse. The goal at least must be made clear. Either we're working towards separation, and any israelis who'll want to stay on foreign soil will be on their own, or towards full annexation, which means the end of Israel as we know it, but either way steps have to be made to clearly show our intentions and eventually put an end to this mess which is Israel's own undoing.
    But welcome to the real world anyway if you finally understood that most people don't wish their camp to be honest, only to say what they want to believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yuppp. But those are difficult steps unfortunately.

      Delete
    2. It's told that Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev had an argument with the Ba'al HaTanya.
      Rabbi Levi Yitzchak said, "If I were the Ribono shel Olom, I would bring the geula shleimah immediately!"
      The Ba'al HaTanya replied, "If I were the Ribono shel Olom, I would have things exactly the way the Ribono shel Olom did them!"

      In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it was already clear during the Rabin administration that the Oslo Accords were not going as planned. Even if Rabin weren't assassinated, he probably would have lost the election to Netanyahu in 1996, because the PA was either not capable or willing of actually curbing Palestinian terror. Even now, they may not actively perform terror attacks, but the PA lionizes terror and rewards terror attacks. And their education system, as Rabbi Slifkin wrote, does not teach peaceful coexistence, but rather that Jews have no place in "Palestine" at all.

      It's not as if the options of separation haven't been suggested. Ehud Barak made his offer at Camp David, which was rejected.

      After the Gaza Disengagement, Sharon wanted to perform a Disengagement in the West Bank, which they called the "Realignment Plan". The plan was to annex the large settlement blocs, and cede the other 90% of the West Bank to Palestinian control. Olmert, who filled in for Sharon after Sharon's stroke, was told by the EU and America not to implement any unilateral concessions. He also made an offer to Abbas, which was shelved.

      What else was Israel supposed to do? How else can this chess game have played itself out?

      I waste a lot of time reading pro-Palestinian voices on Quora. What is clear to me, is that there are probably Palestinians who would settle for one of Israel's previous offers of autonomy/statehood.

      But there is a very vociferous, implacable group of Palestinians and pro-Palestinians, on numerous spaces on Quora, who are only willing to settle for a "one state solution", involving Israel accepting all of the Palestinian refugees, and creating a Palestinian majority state in the area. They'll push for boycotting, sanctioning, and demonizing Israel until that goal is reached. No amount of concessions will suffice for these people.

      Delete
    3. Can I make a very minimal suggestion about what Israel is supposed to do. How about removing the extremist Jews - you know them very well - who live in small outposts around Kfar Tapuach and in and around Chevron - whose sole purpose in life is to make trouble?

      Delete
    4. I'm not saying we should base our policy on Twitter or Quora comments, I'm saying we have to work a solution out. I don't expect it to be immediate, but to be the goal.

      For starters, if we want to ultimately separate we could stop building more and more settlements there as if there was no tomorrow, and clearly signify to the colons that they're on a stopwatch. No need to actually withdraw until there is goodwill in the other direction too. Gaza is not a good example, as there was no plan, no arrangement on the future. Sharon probably expected it to turn horribly but did it anyway because he didn't actually care.

      And if we want to annex then we could start giving them a taste of the future, like integrating the West Bank into the colossal infrastructure programs Israel is currently implementing. Another idea would be welcoming the AP to move to East Jerusalem, preparing its transition into the regional council of the West Bank.

      And in any case we should stop the hidden ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, and start embracing it as a multicultural city, which also means the same level of infrastructure in all neighborhoods.

      There are many ideas we could implement, if not these ones then others. But as long as everyone is more interested in gaining the upper hand we're going nowhere.

      Delete
    5. Certainly harassment of Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs is reprehensible and shouldn't be tolerated. There are a lot of videos of rock-throwing incidents where Jews are doing the rock-throwing, and soldiers are just watching it. I'm not sure if they're tolerating it because no one is getting hurt, or because of bias.

      But what gets more attention are the instances that result in Palestinian deaths, and it's almost unavoidable. For example: There was an incident recently where the IDF or the police searched a house of a Palestinian family in North Jerusalem for weapons (I think it was in Kfar Aqab), and the homeowner was shot and killed. The IDF said that he pulled a knife on them.

      It doesn't seem likely that someone would pull a knife on someone armed with a rifle, but I don't think that the soldiers would just open fire unprovoked either. I don't know of any solution to prevent incidents like this happening.

      Delete
    6. Yehuda

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good

      Delete
  12. You think every map in the world reflects every political conflict? And especially do you think within the two sides themselves, do you think the one side is so solicitous to the other as to include its perspective in its own maps??? Be real. There's a word for people who think their own side has to take the (imaginary) "high ground", even while their opponents are busy laughing at them, and that word is LOSER.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rabbi Akiva said "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the great rule of the Torah, and Hillel said that the rest of the Torah was but commentary to that rule, but really they were both LOSERS.

      Delete
    2. Uh (Nachum, there I go again!), Lawrence is talking about Jews vis-à-vis the Arabs. R' Akiva was talking about between Jews!

      Delete
    3. Lawrence is correct: The Palestinians can brazenly and unapologetically teach their children that the Temple never existed on the Temple Mount, Jews are Khazars with no connection to the land of Israel, and all sorts of other ahistorical nonsense. The European Union will first say that they'll withhold funding for their textbooks until they change the content--but the Palestinians know that they'll be able to keep indoctrinating their children to be extremists, and the EU will still feel compelled to pay for their education system.

      Meanwhile, they see Israel falling over themselves when they're accused of "apartheid" and "racism", to try as much to placate their accusers.

      Delete
    4. Yehuda's argument repeated ad nauseum is that he once argued with some unreasonable people or more specifically people he perceived as unreasonable on Quora.

      Therefore, he maintains, there is no objective moral responsibility on Israelis to behave like a mensch, because undoubtedly the people on quora are the exact same people affected by Israeli policy, undoubtedly their moral responsibility to try act humanely was discharged by the fruitless discourse on Quora, and anyway burning cars is a reasonable response to unreasonable people in Quora.

      Delete
    5. Hat, I think you many times have though provoking points, but this is a very complicated topic and not as black and white as you make it sound. Yes, the right-wing Zionists do push to annex the West Bank, with no intention on naturalizing the Palestinian residents. But on the other hand, the Palestinians are by no means peace partners, and if not properly and actively contained, a threat to the security of Jews not only in the West Bank but in the entire Israel. So while in theory Slifkin has a good point in his post, pragmatically, you gotta deal with them on their terms. And they don't appreciate the concept of intellectual honesty. By creating a map that delineates the West Bank as occupied, they just see it as we are capitulating which emboldens them further.

      Delete
  13. The state was founded violating the 3 oaths... the משיח won’t come until there is no jewish מלכות... Sanhedrin 96... hopefully without any tzar or nezik for any jew...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is very debatable [and in non satmar circles not even a discussion ] if you pasken from agadetta. in addition , the goyim violated their oath by annihilating jews

      Delete
    2. You had us fooled!

      Delete
  14. Explain the national security reason for Gopstein and Marzel to terrorise Hebron with their violent religion of hate?

    They represent nobody. They dominate the headlines with their outrageous incitement. They are destroying the state of Israel and the good name of the Jewish religion. There is no good reason for these fruitcakes to enjoy the full support of the army and state of Israel. And yet they do. Every day your sons and daughters risk their lives so Marzel can punch little boys and call passing women sharmuttas and feel a hero for doing so.

    And yet Rabbi Dr Slifkin can see absolutely nothing that the occupation could be doing better. Every last iota of policy, he maintains, is strictly necessary for security purposes.

    Nahum is a voice from the Trump era, exultant, to the bloody history of the occupation, to racism, ethnic cleansing and violence. All this he does from the safety of his keyboard. Other people's children die for his grotesque mythological fantasies. But at least he tells the truth about the occupation.

    Until Rabbi Doctor Slifkin can name the problem, can practically oppose the most egregious and indefensible aspect of the occupation, his is tiresome, tinny, whining voice of hand wringing. He really is sorry your children need to be shot in the back by foreign occupation soldiers, but trusts you will understand there is no other way of managing you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Hat: I live in Israel. I raise my kids in Israel. I am looking out my window right now at a plaque marking the spot of a suicide bombing. There's another right around the corner. When my son enters school, he passes a plaque with the names of two teachers and thirty-six graduates who fell in the line of duty.

      So kindly take your accusations of "safety of my keyboard" and keep them in galut with you.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but you've never once personally manned a checkpoint in Chevron, although you are a grizzled veteran of the Times of Israel Facebook comment boards.

      Delete
    3. Oh, and I'm sure you have.

      Delete
    4. I'm not the one advocating violent racial war.

      Delete
    5. Right. So I'll take that unfair presumption of an attack as an admission that you don't live here, and, I'm guessing, have never even visited.

      When faced with a similar accusation, Meir Kahane responded, "*I* want a war? I live in Israel, all my children and grandchildren live in Israel, I serve in the army, my children serve in the army, no one wants peace more than me."

      Whereas you, to satisfy your sick anti-Zionism, are one who really wants violence.

      Delete
    6. Well, there is peace and peace, right?

      https://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/HITPEACE.pdf

      Delete
    7. Oh, Hitler! That's it, you win.

      Delete
    8. "My religion believes in discrimination", right?

      Delete
    9. וְזֶה לְהָרְגְּךָ בָּא, שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹדֵעַ הוּא שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַעֲמִיד עַצְמוֹ וְרוֹאֶה שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין מָמוֹנוֹ בְּפָנָיו וְשׁוֹתֵק, לְפִיכָךְ עַל מְנָת כֵּן בָּא שֶׁאִם יַעֲמֹד בַּעַל הַמָּמוֹן כְּנֶגְדוֹ יַהַרְגֶנּוּ

      Rashi Shemos 22:1

      So much for Kahana and his religion of land thieving peace.

      Delete
    10. 'Oh, Hitler! That's it, you win.'

      I'm not comparing the ideologies right here. But everyone wants peace when it means having your cake and eat it too.

      Delete
    11. "Explain the national security reason for Gopstein and Marzel to terrorise Hebron with their violent religion of hate? "

      What's your obsession with the Big Gopper & Marzel? You just tutored us that there's no such thing as absolute security and that the terrorists will continue to kill after a withdrawl- e.g. the million+ residents terrorised down south. You're OK with that. So why can't you handle a couple of fringe fruitcakes, both of whom have been prosecuted by the State you despise.

      Turns out you can have your fruitcake and eat it too.

      Delete
    12. "There is no good reason for these fruitcakes to enjoy the full support of the army and state of Israel. And yet they do. "

      They don't.

      Delete
  15. You write about land not "legally" owned by Israel. Israel wouldn't even exist were it not for a lot of things, done by a lot of people, that weren't "legal". Don't worry so much about "legal". It's our land, its high time we made it formal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously the rule of law is important in preventing the descent of Israel into a corrupt kleptocracy about to reelect an indicted man into the highest public office, but it isn't just about the rule of law.

      It's about fundamental decency.

      When colonels shoot teenaged boys in the back it is indecent. When hilltop youth without beat up and stab Palestinian farmers at gunpoint to extort their land, it is indecent. When a COGAT officer demands sexual favours for a work permit it is indecent. When property developers determine settlement policies it is indecent. When race is used as a criterion for who can use the public highway it is indecent.

      And as Leibowitz predicted in 1968, (because this descent is entirely predictable,) becoming a secret police state, an army of occupation, isn't just corrosive to the moral character of our conduct to the Palestinians. The Jewish Israeli national character is coarsened and cheapened. Human dignity means nothing. Lynch mobs beat up people in the streets. Nobody is safe when the law of kol d'alim gavar prevails.

      Delete
    2. No, Hat. You're just looking for distractions. The post was worried about "legal", and its not in Israel's interests to worry about that.
      Annex it Day 1 after the mid-terms.

      Delete
    3. What happens to the Palestinian residents of the WB after it is annexed? Do they become citizens?

      Delete
    4. I'm sure if it was your olive trees being burned by armed hoodlums you wouldn't think the illegality was a distraction.

      Delete
    5. The Hat - your interest in the moral principle applies primarily to Israel, de-contextualized and without any balance of the moral agency of the other side. This creates an unbalanced view of Israeli actions and reactions - which by right need be judged in the context of that to which they respond. Your harping about proportionally miniscule, publically-condemned-by-majority-of-Jews Jewish sins, while remaining silent regarding proportionally large, publically-supported-by-majority-of-Arabs Arab sins is as tedious as it is unethical. Whatever factual truth in your statements is drowned out by the lack of equitability and fairness in assessing even the basic facts. As you ignore the wider context of what is happening, the fundamental support in Gaza and WB for destroying Israel, and the fundamental desire for honest peace in Israel, you add your voice to the panoply of anti-Semites.

      (I find it quite interesting that your comment "Can you count?" to Just Curious below, shows that you are able to consider context and proportionality when it comes to intra-Jewish issues - disappointing that you can't do so when the issue is between Israel and Arab.)

      Delete
    6. On what basis do you think these events are miniscule, and what percentage of these events do you think result in legal consquences for the perpetrator? This is from August alone

      https://www.btselem.org/video/20220828_settlers_throw_stones_at_palestinian_homes_and_cars_in_presence_of_soldier_

      https://www.btselem.org/video/20220817_settlers_cut_down_25_olive_trees_in_turmusaya_ramallah_district

      https://www.btselem.org/settler_violence/20220815_settler_assaults_palestinian_farmer_working_his_land_and_later_settlers_attack_his_home_in_hebron_twice

      https://www.btselem.org/video/20220808_settlers_set_fire_to_olive_grove_and_attack_homes_and_soldiers_attack_residents_in_Surif_hebron_district

      The invention of the mobile camera phone has radically changed the scope of what you can claim not to know about in good faith.

      Delete
    7. You are proving my point.

      Delete
    8. Oh, you want the July ones as well?

      Delete
    9. I thought you were proving the point, now I see you are missing it.

      Delete
    10. "And as Leibowitz predicted "
      And he was wrong.

      Delete
  16. “Natan, why are you always picking on the chareidim? Natan, what about all the problems in your own community, why don’t you ever focus on those? Whine whine whine…”

    ReplyDelete
  17. Never before have so many fought, for so long, for so little. ACJA

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey doc, I overcame my original disinterest and read your article and I actually agree with you! Please go back to posting more provocative material. But maybe hold off until Succos time. I will be overwhelmed once the zeman starts juggling work and my sedorim and will not be able to stay up until 2 am trolling people anymore. In the meantime post about your museum or Israeli politics or anti-vax. Sorry Nachum, David and Jeffrey, I'm sure you'll miss me tons!

    ReplyDelete
  19. On an important semantic point, Zionists can still support the state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish nation and oppose the apartheid occupation of the West Bank. In fact it is consistent with Zionist ideals of self determination to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sin the same way the ten spies did, by rejecting the good land God gave to his people.

      Delete
    2. Actually the 10 spies were punished for not telling the truth.

      Delete
    3. The Torah says they reported bad things (דיברתם רע) not false reports.

      Delete
  20. I have been commenting on the legal status of Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.

    But I would also like to comment on the attitude of those who claim that for whatever reason, legal status or not, that Jews should not be able to live in those areas.

    The term for that attitude is "anti-Semitic".

    Shabbat Shalom.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Charlie, you mean well (like most people), but you're tying yourself into knots. You're like Dr. Slifkin - "Chazal got everything wrong, buuuuuuut, we still shouldn't change halacha." You're the same thing: " They're illegal occupations, buuuuuuuuut, they have the right to be there."

    Don't you (both of you) understand? This is the difference between academics and real word people. It's not that other people see the issues that academics see - of course they do. But in the real world you have to make actual decisions, you can't dance between the doorsteps. Thus, in this example, you have to annex, come what may. No one's saying its easy or fair. But Israel is here for Jews, not Arabs. That, my friend, is life.

    ReplyDelete
  22. C. Hall- August 26 ,22 at 3:48 P.M.- self determination for Jews only in tiny Israel? This is our ancestral home. Jordan is a Palestinian state! Was part of the English mandate of Eretz Yisrael.. We should annex Yehudah and Shomron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, what happens to the Arab residents of Yehudah and Shomron when it is annexed? Do they get citizenship rights in Israel, or not?

      Delete
    2. Citizenship? You can give them same dhimmi status they gave Jews for centuries.

      But I live in the real world, and that would be a hard sell. So, you give them full citizenship provided they sign cards recognizing the Jewish character of the state. Or adopt the New York initiative Dr. Slifkin thinks is so smart, and require them to teach Jewish civics to their children. Alternatively still, make citizenship contingent on some kind of sherut leumi or even actual army service. Failure to accept of act in accordance with any of these results in permanent loss of voting rights.

      These are all perfect normal concepts, as anyone with any honesty has to admit. (Israel itself already excluded R. Meir Kahane, and none of the left seemed too concerned about "democracy.") Some version of all of them is in place in many countries of the world. Of course it will be unpalatable for most Arabs, but that's precisely why they can't have a state to begin with. So - you do what you have to do, and pull off that band-aid. Should have been done a long time ago, but its spilled milk. Do it Day 1 after the midterms.

      Delete
    3. Unknown: do you drive treating other road users as Dhimmis, or contingent road users?

      When you are shopping and someone else is browsing the shelves, do you treat them as second class citizens?

      When your children are playing in the playground, do you teach them that the strongest get to chose the rules of the game?

      Behave like a mensch. It really is that simple.

      Delete
    4. "Behave like a mensch" - like not committing acts of terrorism? Apparently not that simple.

      Delete
    5. It's actually a very simple proposition. Nobody should commit acts of terrorism. Two wrongs don't make a right. No acts of wanton violence against third parties with zero complicity in the original wrongother than their race or ethnicity.

      I can agree to that.

      You cannot, because the reality is your team is doing much of the wanton violence to the other. Prove me wrong. Condemn all acts of terror committed by any person for any reason.

      Delete
    6. If you agree that on one should commit acts of terrorism, then there's nothing more to discuss. Now just get the Arabs in Yesha to agree, and you'd be in business.

      Delete
    7. I also need to get you to agree that there is no justification for Jewish terrorists, but you seem reluctant to do so.

      Delete
  23. My comment was to The Hat who affirms Jewish self determination in pre- 67 borders but not the West Bank!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I object to a foreign military occupation of territories where your right to vote for the arbiter of public policy depends on your race.

      It is also the case that if a group of Jews walked around Arab areas of Haifa brutalising looting and burning cars there would be legal consequences, while in the occupied West Bank such action is commonplace and too often without any challenge or consequence and in fact often is protected by the security forces of the occupying power.

      In Israel proper there is no legalised apartheid.

      Delete
    2. The Hat- Perhaps give the Arabs Canton local rule. They have a State

      Delete
    3. Our rights toreclaim

      Delete
    4. The Hat- Reclaiming our land trump's restricting voting by an enemy in our midst. Suggest Canton local rule by the Arabs in the territories. I don't buy your persecution claims of Arabs in the territories when we face a terror threat of huge proportions.

      Delete
    5. Why not give the Jews a canton?

      "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour"

      Delete
    6. Are you saying that burning olive trees is a reasonable response to terror threats, or that you don't believe olive trees are burned because of terror threats? Either seems a complete non-sequitur.

      Delete
  24. Israeli right wingers - poor us, look at all this terrorism we suffer! We are entitled to behave despicably to the Arabs!

    Also Israeli right wingers - I don't know how you can live in Chu"l with all the anti-Semitism, come to our land of milk and honey.

    Which is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neither proposition of that "dichotomy" is actually true, but I would ask you as a left winger, how do you claim to be against discrimination if you're in favor of "affirmative action"? And how further do you claim to be in favor of "tolerance" if you believe everyone must accept the atheist view of the world? And how are you against violence if you're in favor of BLM rioting? And a hundred other internal contradictions we can show.

      Delete
    2. Lawrence, for the Left, all of those things are like democracy to Erdogan: A train you take to your stop, and then you get off. They were against "the man" until they became the man, and then the mask slipped.

      Delete
    3. I am not left wing, not old enough to have had an opinion on "the man", not in favour of BLM rioting, not in favour of affirmative actions, didn't require you to embrace atheism and did not present a false dichotomy. Although if I had done all those things all you would be doing would be obfuscation and whataboutery.

      What I find curious is the tactics used to evade hurtful facts. My six year old clutches her teddy. Gluttons stuff their faces. Lawrence regurgitates his feel-good Ben Shapiro attack lines about 'the Left'. Nahum can't quite decide if he is in favour or against democracy. But facts don't care about feelings.

      Delete
    4. Don't go out in the rain and then complain that its wet. You start slinging around nonsense non sequitur dichotomies about Israeli "right wingers", and then get all huffy when the real contradictions that abound in the leftists are pointed out.

      Delete
    5. .... But I'm not a 'leftists', so your emotional support attack lines are just a form of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

      Delete
    6. No, you're not a leftist, you just think Israel should turn a blind eye to terrorism and hand the Arabs a state to be used to destroy Israel. You know, Hat, creative definitions of common words is also a hallmark of the left.

      Delete
    7. That is a creative definition of leftist.

      Not burning trees and cars is not going to hand anybody a state to destroy anything. It is basic human morality of the story you should have learned in kindergarten. The only person turning a blind eye to terrorism is you.

      Delete
    8. "Not burning trees and cars is not going to hand anybody a state to destroy anything."

      But you said you're OK with a little violence, since there's no such thing as absolute security. It's not like there's a genocide going on. It's just a little worse than down south near Gaza.

      Delete
    9. The only person entirely phlegmatic about inhumane levels of violence is you.

      Perhaps you didn't learn in kindergarten, but there are lots of numbers.

      Somewhere in between zero violence and maximum possible violence is minimum possible violence. This number is not zero.

      What you are doing is the Nirvana fallacy. Zero violence is not possible, so let's not bother trying to reduce it.

      Delete
    10. "Zero violence is not possible"
      And yet you obsess over Gopstein & Marzel.

      Delete
    11. Remember the bit about there being lots of numbers? The aim is not zero violence. It is the minimum possible violence.

      In your telling, terrorism and racusm are extrinsic to the Occupation. Gopstein and Marzel serve no useful purpose to anyone. It's an act of minimal human decency ask to expel then from the West Bank.

      Delete
  25. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-62635675

    More firing ranges with civilian houses in them needed for the IDF. It is cynical land theft.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 1. Not giving the Arabic inhabitants the same legal rights *is not* a serious problem. It is a solution. In fact, Israel formally annexed Eastern Jerusalem and did not give its Arabic inhabitants full legal rights. So what? No one among haters of Israel began hating even more, and the vise versa.
    Giving or not giving the legal rights is simply pretext the Left uses.
    2. "Palestinian" literally means "invader", "aggressor". I don't think that this slur should be used to people who simply were born in wrong place and wrong time. Why not to call them in their name, i.e. Arabs? I am not a racist and I don't think being an Arab is so bad that should be concealed.
    Hillel Brodsky

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try driving without respecting the legal rights of other drivers and let me know how you get on.

      Honestly, were you not taught in kindergarten to behave?

      Delete
    2. Not giving the Jewish inhabitants the same legal rights *is not* a serious problem. It is a solution. In fact, Germany did not give its Jewish inhabitants full legal rights. So what? No one among haters of Germany began hating even more, and the vise versa.

      Giving or not giving the legal rights is simply pretext the Left uses.

      2) "Zionist" literally means "invader", "aggressor". I don't think that this slur should be used to people who simply were born in wrong place and wrong time. Why not to call them in their name, i.e. Jews? I am not a racist and I don't think being an Jew is so bad that should be concealed.

      Hillel Brodsky's echo

      Delete
    3. Correct. The claim "We cant annex Yesha because we would need to give them full citizenship" is a fiction. It is just as false as was the dream that exiting Gaza would lead to peace.

      Delete
    4. The logic here seems twisted beyond recognition.

      Not giving people legal rights due to their ethnicity / race "is not a serious problem. It is a solution" -- really? I mean, this is the situation Jews lived under for centuries, resulting in untold amounts of violence and brutality without consequence for the perpetrators. You would wish that on others? What exactly do you see as the end-game for E. J'lem Arabs -- make them so angry that they leave? How has that approach been working out for the last 50 years?

      Delete
  27. Question: if Israel failed to annex areas won in war, does this mean they failed in terms of rav kook's definition of "kovesh?"

    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.

More Tzedaka Shenanigans

Kupat Ha'ir, the charity with the unfortunate tagline of "100% Pure Tzedaka," sent out an interesting campaign before Rosh H...