And thus we see how Overton windows are shifted for us. Up until the mid-90's only a crazy fringe thought that the Palestinians should get any sort of state. Now we're told it's the "moderate" view.
We all sound very moderate when we're able to define the terms ourselves.
Personally, I don't care if I sound moderate or not, but for some reason a lot of people like to be seen as such.
You're assuming that there has to be a plan (not necessarily), you're assuming that any plan is better than none (absolutely not), and you're assuming that lack of a plan is a sign of something bad, also not necessarily true.
The Camp David accords spoke of some sort of autonomy. (The Egyptians didn't care; that clause was forced on Israel by Jimmy Carter, who we now know is an anti-Semite.) Like some sort of Area B, the Palestinians get to run their own affairs but they don't get a state. (They already elected their own mayors and so on, always had.) That may make some people "uncomfortable," but it just wasn't a given that just because a people exists (if they even exist- remember that they did not before about 1965) they deserve a state. (There are hundreds if not thousands of ethnic groups around the world without a state of their own, and many of them have a lot less rights than the Palestinians ever did under Israel.) That we "all" think otherwise today is the result of a very well-coordinated campaign. I can think of some others we've seen since the 1990's, I think you can guess which, but they all work the same way.
1. A makes up almost half the Jewish population, and A and B make up the large majority. By any measure, that means that we are not extreme - we are the mainstream.
Nearly half of Israeli Jews say Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, including roughly one-in-five Jewish adults who strongly agree with this position [sic].
2/3 of Jews do not believe the 'Palestinians' have a right to their own state.
Also, the Israeli government, whose voters come from A and B, has had a majority among voters, and a large majority among Jewish voters, for the last 30 years.
2. People in A actually have thought through the consequences of our policies, and have reasons why we think the benefits outweigh any negative consequences. Just because you believe we are wrong is no reason to make a strawman - that is just lazy thinking.
The Pew poll questions are a bit vague. Do they mean all Arabs or some Arabs? I find it very, very hard to believe that so many Israelis would want to see several million Arabs rounded up at gunpoint and forced out. Also, in my experience, people will throw out an extreme statement, but if you ask them to think about it more deeply and imagine the scenario, they back down considerably.
I'm sorry, *you* put in the word "gunpoint" there. That's intellectually dishonest. Surely your imagination is more flexible than reverting to scare words like that.
As to backing down, sometimes our initial "extreme" response is the better one. Overthinking can be bad. In 1948 a lot of charedi gedolim thought the State of Israel was a great thing. Then they got to thinking about it. Their later position was *not* the correct one.
Not at all. Tens of millions of people were ethnically cleansed after World War II, with the full approval and even active support of the "international community," and guns were not involved- and that was by force! There are even more pleasant ways of doing this.
Just last year 100,000 Armenians fled Azerbaijan. There was a war involved, although they technically fled on their own. The world? Crickets. People are easily distracted. Except when there are Jews involved, I guess. Jews *winning*, that is. When Jews are being killed, crickets.
For the last few months even mainstream Israeli politicians, not radical, not even right-wing, have been pointing out the obvious fact that Israel *cannot* have millions of Palestinians living in Gaza.
For the amount of money Israel has spent fighting and/or lost due to Palestinian terror in the last few decades, they could have offered a nice fat check to each family as incentive to go. I wouldn't be surprised if half of them would have taken up the offer at least.
For all the money the UN, the EU, the Arab world, and all these NGOs have been pouring into the Palestinians for the last eighty years, they could have saved a lot by simply absorbing a lot of them. Hey, they seem perfectly willing to absorb "refugees" from every. single. other. Muslim country in the world. (It hasn't worked out, but that's on them.)
Oh, they're not willing to do the same for the Palestinians? They should be told to shut up, then.
Guns would have been involved had the Poles and Germans and Finns and others refused to move. Don't pretend otherwise.
Sovereign states have the right to create their own nationality laws. Had countries in the Middle East adopted *jus soli* citizenship, as most of the Western Hemisphere has, the problem of stateless individuals would not exist. But given that Israel also doesn't have *jus soli* citizenship, it doesn't have any standing to object to the just as restrictive nationality laws in Arab countries.
"But given that Israel also doesn't have *jus soli* citizenship, it doesn't have any standing to object to the just as restrictive nationality laws in Arab countries. "
Not a legitimate comparison.
Israel is a moral country with moral laws, including laws regarding citizenship. Arab countries refuse to give citizenship to Arabs who have been residents for decades, not out of some pretense of self-preservation but out of genocidal anti-Semitism. Since such auto-xenophobic citizenship laws of Arab countries are manifestations of genocidal policies, they are illegal under international law, and those that draft and preserve them should be arrested by the ICC.
Also, I think it was Baruch Goldstein and his admirer Ben Gvir who amply demonstrated that use of the gun to mow down the recalcitrant is fine in pursuit of their goals.
Like other very right wing RZ, he was an admirer of Goldstein for his murderous actions and kept a picture of him up in his living room. He took it down when he realized it was interfering with his political goals. He also famously threatened Rabin's safety by stealing the hood ornament from his car and brandishing it on TV, demonstrating that he and his friends could reach him and harm him, which of course then happened. I think that is something of the sort, to put it mildly.
I'm no fan of Ben Gvir. One of his few positives is that he "never demonstrated anything of the sort". He only celebrates such despicable acts but doesn't actually have the nerve to do it.
The precise understanding of the question by the listener does not matter, since any reasonable understanding would put a large amount of the Jewish population in A - which means that A is mainstream, not extreme.
Regarding what you find hard to believe - that is not relevant. I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person like you would hold your positions, but I accept the reality that you do. That has no bearing on what position is correct, however.
Perhaps if you fully consider the long term consequences of continuing the present situation, instead of only considering the short term downsides you imagine will happen, you will realize why many people think the way they do. And if you get that far, I hope you will actually start taking their views seriously enough to formulate arguments against those positions (beyond using strawman arguments).
Regarding the exact scenario, read the Zehut platform for a detailed and thought-out implementation (including answers to your concerns) which is not the strawman scenario you describe:
Furthermore, real expulsions have occurred many times throughout history - including recent history. The northern population of Gaza was uprooted and moved during this recent war, for example. So whatever your theoretical views, in practice, it is possible.
The morality or practically of a policy is not decided by the number of people who respond to polls. It's an extreme position regardless of the number of endorsers.
Extreme just means there is a spectrum with two ends, especially when they are very far from the center. For example some people speak of being free speech absolutists. Whenever a revolution is entertained it is recognized as an extreme measure. Forced population transfer (or worse) is definitely recognized as an extreme measure even by groups that try to execute on such plans.
While there was plenty of morally and militarily dubious strategic bombing by the allies in response to strategic bombing by the axis powers, it happens to be that the bombing of Dresden prevented the imminent roundup of the remaining free Jewish Germans (e.g. those married to Gentiles).
It would pretty much end international support for Israel and result in devastating sanctions. The only time Israel ever faced that possibility was in early 1957. Lyndon Johnson wrote an amazing letter to John Foster Dulles objecting:
For those who are posting that either ethnically cleansing the territories or permanently leaving the residents without democratic representation is OK, you are justifying the moral position of the Iran and their proxies. They agree with you and think that we don't have any real moral right to live in Israel or have a say in its governance and that is morally OK.
They think the same, but ours and theirs are reversed from their PoV. But we rightly don't just say "it's all ours". We rightly object to the notion of uprooting a sovereign state especially a (mostly) democracy that gives (mostly) political rights to minorities and that kicking out or subjugating the Jews would be immoral. Those who say that we can morally do the same to Palestinians are sanctioning the morality of the Iranian dream; they just are on the other side of the fight to do the same to the other side.
Which sovereign state? The PA? That was based on Oslo which the other side forgot to keep. They pay terrorists families. What moral right do they have to live here?
Besides, my issue with Iran is not their personal morality. My issue with them is being an enemy to jewish sovereignty. They are the same to me as Arabs who vote Tibi. Same goal-different methods.
I mentioned that because Israel is one not the PA is one. You don't lose your right to live in your home because you are living in an occupied territory without political rights.
You've then reduced this to two sides who want to submit the other by force with no side having any real moral claim over the other and no real reason for the civilized world to care who wins. Iran just happens to be on the other side of this, but we are no better or worse than them.
The Torah allows for foreigners to live in the land if the abide by certain laws. Many, probably most, wouldn't agree with these laws, thus losing their right to remain.
Again, this justifies Hamas morally, as they similarly think that we don't have a right to live in Israel except under their version of Islam. In fact the Torah describes lots of activities that almost all observant Jews consider immoral today such as killing civilians among other nations or taking them as slaves including sex slaves.
Of course, "non-Jewish" needs to be defined. There are billions of non-Jews in the world, and to pretty much all of them outside of North America (and even to a majority there) and Western Europe (and even at least a solid minority there), including, ironically, all Arabs and Muslims, "God gave it to us" is a perfectly moral argument, and even "We conquered it by aggressive force and so we get to keep it" is. They may not *agree* with your facts, but they would see the *argument* as such as moral.
And lest you start telling me other things about those countries, let me point out that in those countries where, and to those people to whom, those arguments are considered immoral, even a passive action like not wearing a rainbow patch is considered the height of immorality.
Yet, this has little to do with non-Jewish standards. For example, Jews also recognize the immorality of Hamas in killing and raping civilians and taking them hostage, above and beyond Israeli battle deaths in an unjustified war by Hamas. Jews also recognize the immorality of countries over the course of history in making their lands Judenrein even though it was "their" lands. I certainly hope Jewish ethics hasn't devolved to inherent Jewish superiority over the Gentiles.
It would be immoral if the plan was to conquer the whole world (as the Islamists want for themselves). If we only say that the Land of Israel belongs to us by divine decree, there is nothing immoral in that.
I'm sorry that I don't meet your standard of frumkeit.
My position on this is similar to my approach with respect to Torah-science controversies: if it is true, it is OK to say it, without regard to religious offense. Not that I would go into a Charedi/Yeshivish Beis Midrash to announce it. So it is OK to say that evolution is almost certainly a correct theory of the life and is OK to say that "they think the same" because they, in fact, think the same. This forum is a place where speech is pretty free.
"And there is no reason to believe that this will ever change; there will never be a peaceful resolution. Accordingly, Israel should continue settling Judea and Samaria wherever it will strengthen its position, regardless of the international consequences." This is backwards of the real reasoning. No one knew that Japan and Germany could be pacified; no one knew that the Troubles could be wound down. No one knew that South Africa could integrate without a bloody uprising and reprisals against by the oppressed against their former oppressors. There is no way to know what is impossible in the future. The settlements are there to foreclose ever coming to a solution and the reason to do it is because they want to settle where they want and they don't want a "solution".
You think that rape and strategic bombing contributed to the pacification of post-war Germany and Japan? I don't agree and I don't think any historians agree either. The harsh treatment of the Germans after WWI was a major cause of WWII. The allies relatively gentle hand after WWII contributed to the pacification of those countries.
Gemany was defeated when the allies reached into German soil. The strategic bombing on both side was spectacularly ineffective. In fact, it may have cost Germany a victory in the Battle of Britain when they turned from knocking out radar installations and air bases to bombing cities. But all this really has nothing to do with my original comment. Enemies don't permanently act as enemies and two of the examples didn't even require a defeat. I could add the very important peace with Egypt which was only possible after an *Israeli* partial defeat.
I agree with you, but take a different route to that conclusion, starting with a quote from "D":
" In the hopes that this may one day change, and/or for the sake of maintaining international legitimacy rather than becoming a pariah state that will suffer sanctions and be weakened, Israel should avoid settling people in areas that would one day be a Palestinian state, and should make it clear that such a state could exist when Palestinian rejectionism of Israel clearly changes."
Testing that approach, would require Israel to stop "settling" people (Jews) past the Green Line _in 1967_. But Israel _did_ settle Jews past the Green Line, under every government since 1967.
A Palestinian might believe that stopping the process _now_, would be too late to be a genuine sign of "two-state intent" from Israel. If Israel started to move settlers _back behind the Green Line_ -- that might be convincing.
Side note: I was reading Maimonides' "King's Torah". He says that any land conquered by Israel remains Israeli forever, and that it is a milchamah mitzvah to recover it, if it is conquered by anyone else. I think he was just matching the "Muslim land forever" approach within Islam (and still alive in ISIS and Hamas).
At some point you add so many settlements in different locations that you can’t any more create a reasonable contiguous Palestinian land. So stopping now makes a difference. Besides the fact that stopping itself is a statement.
You probably agree with this but I’ll say it anyhow: you can’t make foreign policy based on a Rambam. And it’s clear that the ancient Rabbis gave up on armed rebellion to take back Palestine from the Romans given how that turned out. Giving back the Sinai was a very good thing.
May I suggest a poll of your readership, asking where they fall in these categories? (also potentially asking which views they consider unconscionable to hold)
1. From the post editor toolbar, click on "More" and select "Poll" from the drop-down menu.
2. Once the poll template appears in the draft post, click on the pencil icon in the top right corner to enter the requested details such as how long the poll will last and who can vote. There's also an option to hide the total vote count from readers.
There are problems with all seven positions, mostly unresolvable. But as a diaspora Jew I don't have a right to a position. I and my family will not suffer any consequences if my position turns out to be wrong.
There are Jews in Israel with even wackier views than theirs- dangerous ones, even. (Exhibit A, Moshe Ya'alon.) Doesn't mean they don't belong here, and of course doesn't mean they don't have a right to say whatever idiotic thing they want.
I don't, but I don't want a lot of Israelis playing a major role either! Regardless, my statement is that I think you have a right to a position, not that I need to respect it, nor do I think Israel needs to put a lot of weight on it.
I will say, Sanders et al are public officials in a different country who have taken an oath to that country. Their opinion on Israel matters less, because they have "sworn allegiance" elsewhere. Even though, if worse came to worst, Israel would be a safe place for them to flee.
You and Nachum have made my case better than I can. Diaspora Jews need to stop trying to influence Israeli policy. And Israelis should stop listening to us.
Similarly, Israelis should stop trying to influence the US. It is counterproductive.
Israel's existence this point depends on influencing US policy to continue to supply money, weapons and military assistance. And that depends a lot (although not entirely) on the willingness of US Jews to spend time, money and votes to influence US policy towards Israel. Which in turn depends on Israel and how it reacts to US demands. It's all intertwined.
I'll keep voting in American elections as long as the United States demands I keep paying taxes.
Other than American citizens in Israel voting, can you provide one solid example of that line you love to repeat? How on Earth do Israelis "influence" the US? By subsidizing political campaigns? No, that's the way around.
In the post-1945 world it is absolutely immoral to keep people stateless. Isn't that the whole theory behind why the country was created in the first place?
No, not at all. The idea was that Jews deserve and need their own nation, because of thousands of years of not having a state has not worked for us. This is not a general position, it is specifically about Jews.
Mmmm... The arabs have more than 20 nations, the "levantine arabs" can perfectly go to one of them. The only reason they want a state is to destroy Israel (read the story of Arafat and the connection to the USSR / Cold war).
I agree with you. My response was specifically about how zionism isn't a belief that everyone needs their own homeland, it's about Jews.
Similarly, "never again" isn't a pledge to prevent genocide. It's that the Jews will never again be subject to a genocide like the Holocaust.
Sorry, a little off topic, but it's a pet peeve of mine when Jewish statements about Jews are extrapolated to try to show us as hypocrites when we don't apply them to everyone.
One might just as easily say- a lot more easily, in fact- that something else happened up until 1945 that made it quite clear that it is absolutely immoral not to let Jews be sovereign on every single square centimeter they can get their hands on.
Oh, you know what else happened in 1945? Tens of millions of people were relocated- Germans kicked out Poland and Czechoslovakia, Hindus kicked out Pakistan and Muslims out of India, Jews out of every Arab country...
Infographics are the worst sort of thing for AI to generate, at least in 2024. Reccommend you seek a human graphic artist to help or pick another strategy. That thing hurts to look at.
Bar Kochba's error was not in assuming the Jews could beat Rome --- his early victories were nothing short of spectacular --- but in insisting that such initial successes warranted his being declared Moshiach by his forces:
--- thereby losing, subsequently, much of his erstwhile support (not least, incidentally, from that of the "Nazarene" Jews, who believed, rightly or wrongly, that they already had FOUND the 'Messiah').
"There are stateless peoples everywhere, so there is no need to give them citizenship". I think that B is more accurately: what people are you talking about? I don't see those people. I don't really know; I just want to live in peace. What have I got to do with that. No Israeli thinks that democracy and the right to vote are not important and who cares about that. They just don't spend too much time thinking about other groups.
So to make it clear, extreme position A includes the right to simply murder Palestinians as well as assassinate prime ministers who move towards any kind of negotiated solution. Unfortunately, extreme position A is in the Israeli government now an in charge of many policies related to Palestinians.
This is why I think the labeling of the 7 positions isn't all that good. In A, "...Jews have a God-given right to the entire Biblical Land. Israel should annex Judea and Samaria (and ideally part of Lebanon too), and should force all potentially hostile non-Jews out of it by any means necessary. ...". The latter part of that statement is why I assume you believe that "...the right to simply murder Palestinians...".
As for myself, I agree with everything up to "... and should force all..." but not including that. How would we implement my vision? I have no idea. Maybe we just need to wait for Mashiach to come and we'll see it happening.
I am personally against all violence unless my life is threatened. But I'm also not naive. There are lots of people in the world that want us dead and just need an opportunity.
In reality, I think I'm a little of A, B and C. Think we need to create a G for that combo.
As a non-Israeli Jew, I fall very squarely into the D category. I lean towards C when I'm more pessimistic and D when I'm less so, but from BOTH a moral and pragmatic standpoint, D seems like the only real option. E only works if the pragmatic steps in D are taken and C seems to me to just be more of the current status quo, which I'm not convinced is either doable or correct.
And thus we see how Overton windows are shifted for us. Up until the mid-90's only a crazy fringe thought that the Palestinians should get any sort of state. Now we're told it's the "moderate" view.
We all sound very moderate when we're able to define the terms ourselves.
Personally, I don't care if I sound moderate or not, but for some reason a lot of people like to be seen as such.
Before the mid-90s, what was the mainstream plan?
You're assuming that there has to be a plan (not necessarily), you're assuming that any plan is better than none (absolutely not), and you're assuming that lack of a plan is a sign of something bad, also not necessarily true.
The Camp David accords spoke of some sort of autonomy. (The Egyptians didn't care; that clause was forced on Israel by Jimmy Carter, who we now know is an anti-Semite.) Like some sort of Area B, the Palestinians get to run their own affairs but they don't get a state. (They already elected their own mayors and so on, always had.) That may make some people "uncomfortable," but it just wasn't a given that just because a people exists (if they even exist- remember that they did not before about 1965) they deserve a state. (There are hundreds if not thousands of ethnic groups around the world without a state of their own, and many of them have a lot less rights than the Palestinians ever did under Israel.) That we "all" think otherwise today is the result of a very well-coordinated campaign. I can think of some others we've seen since the 1990's, I think you can guess which, but they all work the same way.
"There are hundreds if not thousands of ethnic groups around the world without a state of their own"
But enough about American citizens.
"There are hundreds if not thousands of ethnic groups around the world without a state of their own"
And that is the source of many of the violent conflicts in the world.
Half of them are in Syria. The other half are in Lebanon and Yemen.
Less a problem lack of ethnic identity states and more the tendency towards tyranny, plus the Marxist taint.
And the source of a lot of peaceful relations as well.
1. A makes up almost half the Jewish population, and A and B make up the large majority. By any measure, that means that we are not extreme - we are the mainstream.
2016 Pew poll: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/
Nearly half of Israeli Jews say Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel, including roughly one-in-five Jewish adults who strongly agree with this position [sic].
2024 IDI poll: https://en.idi.org.il/articles/56081
2/3 of Jews do not believe the 'Palestinians' have a right to their own state.
Also, the Israeli government, whose voters come from A and B, has had a majority among voters, and a large majority among Jewish voters, for the last 30 years.
2. People in A actually have thought through the consequences of our policies, and have reasons why we think the benefits outweigh any negative consequences. Just because you believe we are wrong is no reason to make a strawman - that is just lazy thinking.
The Pew poll questions are a bit vague. Do they mean all Arabs or some Arabs? I find it very, very hard to believe that so many Israelis would want to see several million Arabs rounded up at gunpoint and forced out. Also, in my experience, people will throw out an extreme statement, but if you ask them to think about it more deeply and imagine the scenario, they back down considerably.
I'm sorry, *you* put in the word "gunpoint" there. That's intellectually dishonest. Surely your imagination is more flexible than reverting to scare words like that.
As to backing down, sometimes our initial "extreme" response is the better one. Overthinking can be bad. In 1948 a lot of charedi gedolim thought the State of Israel was a great thing. Then they got to thinking about it. Their later position was *not* the correct one.
Why is gunpoint intellectually dishonest? Ethnic cleansing only happens at gunpoint.
Not at all. Tens of millions of people were ethnically cleansed after World War II, with the full approval and even active support of the "international community," and guns were not involved- and that was by force! There are even more pleasant ways of doing this.
Just last year 100,000 Armenians fled Azerbaijan. There was a war involved, although they technically fled on their own. The world? Crickets. People are easily distracted. Except when there are Jews involved, I guess. Jews *winning*, that is. When Jews are being killed, crickets.
For the last few months even mainstream Israeli politicians, not radical, not even right-wing, have been pointing out the obvious fact that Israel *cannot* have millions of Palestinians living in Gaza.
For the amount of money Israel has spent fighting and/or lost due to Palestinian terror in the last few decades, they could have offered a nice fat check to each family as incentive to go. I wouldn't be surprised if half of them would have taken up the offer at least.
For all the money the UN, the EU, the Arab world, and all these NGOs have been pouring into the Palestinians for the last eighty years, they could have saved a lot by simply absorbing a lot of them. Hey, they seem perfectly willing to absorb "refugees" from every. single. other. Muslim country in the world. (It hasn't worked out, but that's on them.)
Oh, they're not willing to do the same for the Palestinians? They should be told to shut up, then.
Guns would have been involved had the Poles and Germans and Finns and others refused to move. Don't pretend otherwise.
Sovereign states have the right to create their own nationality laws. Had countries in the Middle East adopted *jus soli* citizenship, as most of the Western Hemisphere has, the problem of stateless individuals would not exist. But given that Israel also doesn't have *jus soli* citizenship, it doesn't have any standing to object to the just as restrictive nationality laws in Arab countries.
"But given that Israel also doesn't have *jus soli* citizenship, it doesn't have any standing to object to the just as restrictive nationality laws in Arab countries. "
Not a legitimate comparison.
Israel is a moral country with moral laws, including laws regarding citizenship. Arab countries refuse to give citizenship to Arabs who have been residents for decades, not out of some pretense of self-preservation but out of genocidal anti-Semitism. Since such auto-xenophobic citizenship laws of Arab countries are manifestations of genocidal policies, they are illegal under international law, and those that draft and preserve them should be arrested by the ICC.
"could have offered a nice fat check to each family as incentive to go"
Where to? Most of the rest of the world is now restricting immigration. The US is going to be like that in about seven weeks.
'they seem perfectly willing to absorb "refugees" from every. single. other. Muslim country in the world'
The Persian Gulf oil states don't have many refugees but they have huge numbers of guest workers -- who can never become citizens of those states.
Also, I think it was Baruch Goldstein and his admirer Ben Gvir who amply demonstrated that use of the gun to mow down the recalcitrant is fine in pursuit of their goals.
Ben Gvir never demonstrated anything of the sort.
Like other very right wing RZ, he was an admirer of Goldstein for his murderous actions and kept a picture of him up in his living room. He took it down when he realized it was interfering with his political goals. He also famously threatened Rabin's safety by stealing the hood ornament from his car and brandishing it on TV, demonstrating that he and his friends could reach him and harm him, which of course then happened. I think that is something of the sort, to put it mildly.
I'm no fan of Ben Gvir. One of his few positives is that he "never demonstrated anything of the sort". He only celebrates such despicable acts but doesn't actually have the nerve to do it.
Don't forget the lechi and Etzel.
So there is violent pushback to the current state of affairs, but ethnic cleansing will go swimmingly with no force involved.
The precise understanding of the question by the listener does not matter, since any reasonable understanding would put a large amount of the Jewish population in A - which means that A is mainstream, not extreme.
Regarding what you find hard to believe - that is not relevant. I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person like you would hold your positions, but I accept the reality that you do. That has no bearing on what position is correct, however.
Perhaps if you fully consider the long term consequences of continuing the present situation, instead of only considering the short term downsides you imagine will happen, you will realize why many people think the way they do. And if you get that far, I hope you will actually start taking their views seriously enough to formulate arguments against those positions (beyond using strawman arguments).
Regarding the exact scenario, read the Zehut platform for a detailed and thought-out implementation (including answers to your concerns) which is not the strawman scenario you describe:
The plan:
https://zehut.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8-%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99.pdf
The wider platform: https://zehut.org.il/en/%d7%93%d7%a3-%d7%94%d7%91%d7%99%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%a0%d7%92%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%aa/
Furthermore, real expulsions have occurred many times throughout history - including recent history. The northern population of Gaza was uprooted and moved during this recent war, for example. So whatever your theoretical views, in practice, it is possible.
The morality or practically of a policy is not decided by the number of people who respond to polls. It's an extreme position regardless of the number of endorsers.
Morality and practicality can be discussed, 'extreme' with no context is a pejorative.
The only definition of 'extreme' that makes sense is that a small amount of the population supports it - which is certainly not the case here.
Extreme just means there is a spectrum with two ends, especially when they are very far from the center. For example some people speak of being free speech absolutists. Whenever a revolution is entertained it is recognized as an extreme measure. Forced population transfer (or worse) is definitely recognized as an extreme measure even by groups that try to execute on such plans.
Yeah well the Zealots thought they could beat Rome and public opinion too…look what happened
As did Bar Kochba. I am reminded of the famous quote from George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
OK, let's learn from it.
Oh, I think we have. It's not the year 135.
I'm sorry, what year is it?
Since you mention well thought out consequences, what do you think that the negative consequences will be?
I'm a C. Us pessimists have all the fun
A is suicide. We aren't strong enough to do it by ourselves and we won't get any help from outside.
Not just suicide but morally wrong
By whose standards?
By objective standards on how we are to treat other humans.
Just curious: was Dresden a war crime?
While there was plenty of morally and militarily dubious strategic bombing by the allies in response to strategic bombing by the axis powers, it happens to be that the bombing of Dresden prevented the imminent roundup of the remaining free Jewish Germans (e.g. those married to Gentiles).
Was the גירוש עמי כנען morally wrong?
It would pretty much end international support for Israel and result in devastating sanctions. The only time Israel ever faced that possibility was in early 1957. Lyndon Johnson wrote an amazing letter to John Foster Dulles objecting:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v17/d83
I'm sorry, how's Israel doing internationally these days, as we idiotically ship tons of food to our hostage-holders?
Well, we've been getting thousands of tons of military supplies all year. Imagine if we hadn't.
A good argument for Israel to start working on making that unnecessary as soon as possible.
For those who are posting that either ethnically cleansing the territories or permanently leaving the residents without democratic representation is OK, you are justifying the moral position of the Iran and their proxies. They agree with you and think that we don't have any real moral right to live in Israel or have a say in its governance and that is morally OK.
But Israel is ours. Not theirs.
They think the same, but ours and theirs are reversed from their PoV. But we rightly don't just say "it's all ours". We rightly object to the notion of uprooting a sovereign state especially a (mostly) democracy that gives (mostly) political rights to minorities and that kicking out or subjugating the Jews would be immoral. Those who say that we can morally do the same to Palestinians are sanctioning the morality of the Iranian dream; they just are on the other side of the fight to do the same to the other side.
Which sovereign state? The PA? That was based on Oslo which the other side forgot to keep. They pay terrorists families. What moral right do they have to live here?
Besides, my issue with Iran is not their personal morality. My issue with them is being an enemy to jewish sovereignty. They are the same to me as Arabs who vote Tibi. Same goal-different methods.
I mentioned that because Israel is one not the PA is one. You don't lose your right to live in your home because you are living in an occupied territory without political rights.
You've then reduced this to two sides who want to submit the other by force with no side having any real moral claim over the other and no real reason for the civilized world to care who wins. Iran just happens to be on the other side of this, but we are no better or worse than them.
Well, there is also the issue that there are numerous Muslim Arab states, but only one Jewish state.
The Torah allows for foreigners to live in the land if the abide by certain laws. Many, probably most, wouldn't agree with these laws, thus losing their right to remain.
Again, this justifies Hamas morally, as they similarly think that we don't have a right to live in Israel except under their version of Islam. In fact the Torah describes lots of activities that almost all observant Jews consider immoral today such as killing civilians among other nations or taking them as slaves including sex slaves.
"They think the same" is not something an ostensibly Orthodox Jew should say.
That's not necessarily true. There is an idea in halacha of not doing something which is immoral by non-Jewish standards.
Of course, "non-Jewish" needs to be defined. There are billions of non-Jews in the world, and to pretty much all of them outside of North America (and even to a majority there) and Western Europe (and even at least a solid minority there), including, ironically, all Arabs and Muslims, "God gave it to us" is a perfectly moral argument, and even "We conquered it by aggressive force and so we get to keep it" is. They may not *agree* with your facts, but they would see the *argument* as such as moral.
And lest you start telling me other things about those countries, let me point out that in those countries where, and to those people to whom, those arguments are considered immoral, even a passive action like not wearing a rainbow patch is considered the height of immorality.
It pays to have that perspective.
Yet, this has little to do with non-Jewish standards. For example, Jews also recognize the immorality of Hamas in killing and raping civilians and taking them hostage, above and beyond Israeli battle deaths in an unjustified war by Hamas. Jews also recognize the immorality of countries over the course of history in making their lands Judenrein even though it was "their" lands. I certainly hope Jewish ethics hasn't devolved to inherent Jewish superiority over the Gentiles.
It would be immoral if the plan was to conquer the whole world (as the Islamists want for themselves). If we only say that the Land of Israel belongs to us by divine decree, there is nothing immoral in that.
I'd hate them the same even if they killed 1200 soldiers. Nothing to do with their individual morality.
I'm sorry that I don't meet your standard of frumkeit.
My position on this is similar to my approach with respect to Torah-science controversies: if it is true, it is OK to say it, without regard to religious offense. Not that I would go into a Charedi/Yeshivish Beis Midrash to announce it. So it is OK to say that evolution is almost certainly a correct theory of the life and is OK to say that "they think the same" because they, in fact, think the same. This forum is a place where speech is pretty free.
"And there is no reason to believe that this will ever change; there will never be a peaceful resolution. Accordingly, Israel should continue settling Judea and Samaria wherever it will strengthen its position, regardless of the international consequences." This is backwards of the real reasoning. No one knew that Japan and Germany could be pacified; no one knew that the Troubles could be wound down. No one knew that South Africa could integrate without a bloody uprising and reprisals against by the oppressed against their former oppressors. There is no way to know what is impossible in the future. The settlements are there to foreclose ever coming to a solution and the reason to do it is because they want to settle where they want and they don't want a "solution".
Are you sure you want to make that argument? Japan was pacified after an atomic bomb, Germany after Dresden and thousands of rapes from the Soviets.
Are you suggesting to do the same?
You think that rape and strategic bombing contributed to the pacification of post-war Germany and Japan? I don't agree and I don't think any historians agree either. The harsh treatment of the Germans after WWI was a major cause of WWII. The allies relatively gentle hand after WWII contributed to the pacification of those countries.
Yes, pacification comes after one side is defeated, in this case, Germany didn't surrender until this happened.
Gemany was defeated when the allies reached into German soil. The strategic bombing on both side was spectacularly ineffective. In fact, it may have cost Germany a victory in the Battle of Britain when they turned from knocking out radar installations and air bases to bombing cities. But all this really has nothing to do with my original comment. Enemies don't permanently act as enemies and two of the examples didn't even require a defeat. I could add the very important peace with Egypt which was only possible after an *Israeli* partial defeat.
So we gave the Egyptians the Sinai pen. and they gave us what exactly? Such a great a deal, lol.
It's just a matter of time until the next war.
I agree with you, but take a different route to that conclusion, starting with a quote from "D":
" In the hopes that this may one day change, and/or for the sake of maintaining international legitimacy rather than becoming a pariah state that will suffer sanctions and be weakened, Israel should avoid settling people in areas that would one day be a Palestinian state, and should make it clear that such a state could exist when Palestinian rejectionism of Israel clearly changes."
Testing that approach, would require Israel to stop "settling" people (Jews) past the Green Line _in 1967_. But Israel _did_ settle Jews past the Green Line, under every government since 1967.
A Palestinian might believe that stopping the process _now_, would be too late to be a genuine sign of "two-state intent" from Israel. If Israel started to move settlers _back behind the Green Line_ -- that might be convincing.
Side note: I was reading Maimonides' "King's Torah". He says that any land conquered by Israel remains Israeli forever, and that it is a milchamah mitzvah to recover it, if it is conquered by anyone else. I think he was just matching the "Muslim land forever" approach within Islam (and still alive in ISIS and Hamas).
At some point you add so many settlements in different locations that you can’t any more create a reasonable contiguous Palestinian land. So stopping now makes a difference. Besides the fact that stopping itself is a statement.
You probably agree with this but I’ll say it anyhow: you can’t make foreign policy based on a Rambam. And it’s clear that the ancient Rabbis gave up on armed rebellion to take back Palestine from the Romans given how that turned out. Giving back the Sinai was a very good thing.
Let's give up Baltimore first. We've already given up most of it.
I'm pretty sure Maimonides didn't write that book.
May I suggest a poll of your readership, asking where they fall in these categories? (also potentially asking which views they consider unconscionable to hold)
Great idea, but I don't know how to set that up in SubStack.
https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/7584884241684-How-do-I-add-a-poll-to-a-Substack-post
Follow these steps to add a poll to your post:
1. From the post editor toolbar, click on "More" and select "Poll" from the drop-down menu.
2. Once the poll template appears in the draft post, click on the pencil icon in the top right corner to enter the requested details such as how long the poll will last and who can vote. There's also an option to hide the total vote count from readers.
There are problems with all seven positions, mostly unresolvable. But as a diaspora Jew I don't have a right to a position. I and my family will not suffer any consequences if my position turns out to be wrong.
Unfortunately I think you're wrong. Israel has demonstrably been a safe place for Jews to flee. If that goes away, the diaspora will suffer.
Do you really want Bernie Sanders, or, even worse, Jill Stein, to be playing a major role in influencing Israeli policy? Or the Satmar Chasidim?
There are Jews in Israel with even wackier views than theirs- dangerous ones, even. (Exhibit A, Moshe Ya'alon.) Doesn't mean they don't belong here, and of course doesn't mean they don't have a right to say whatever idiotic thing they want.
I don't, but I don't want a lot of Israelis playing a major role either! Regardless, my statement is that I think you have a right to a position, not that I need to respect it, nor do I think Israel needs to put a lot of weight on it.
I will say, Sanders et al are public officials in a different country who have taken an oath to that country. Their opinion on Israel matters less, because they have "sworn allegiance" elsewhere. Even though, if worse came to worst, Israel would be a safe place for them to flee.
You and Nachum have made my case better than I can. Diaspora Jews need to stop trying to influence Israeli policy. And Israelis should stop listening to us.
Similarly, Israelis should stop trying to influence the US. It is counterproductive.
Israel's existence this point depends on influencing US policy to continue to supply money, weapons and military assistance. And that depends a lot (although not entirely) on the willingness of US Jews to spend time, money and votes to influence US policy towards Israel. Which in turn depends on Israel and how it reacts to US demands. It's all intertwined.
I'll keep voting in American elections as long as the United States demands I keep paying taxes.
Other than American citizens in Israel voting, can you provide one solid example of that line you love to repeat? How on Earth do Israelis "influence" the US? By subsidizing political campaigns? No, that's the way around.
So….down with AIPAC?
Just IMO, that is an abdication of moral responsibility when it comes to ethnic cleansing plans. YMMV.
What would Moshe Rabenu, Yeoshuah Bin Nun and King David be?
Or Yiftach HaGiladi.
Take back Samaria, Judea & Gaza!🇮🇱✡️💜
In the post-1945 world it is absolutely immoral to keep people stateless. Isn't that the whole theory behind why the country was created in the first place?
Um, *why* is it "absolutely immoral"?
Also, thousands of ethnic groups would like a word.
No, not at all. The idea was that Jews deserve and need their own nation, because of thousands of years of not having a state has not worked for us. This is not a general position, it is specifically about Jews.
Mmmm... The arabs have more than 20 nations, the "levantine arabs" can perfectly go to one of them. The only reason they want a state is to destroy Israel (read the story of Arafat and the connection to the USSR / Cold war).
I agree with you. My response was specifically about how zionism isn't a belief that everyone needs their own homeland, it's about Jews.
Similarly, "never again" isn't a pledge to prevent genocide. It's that the Jews will never again be subject to a genocide like the Holocaust.
Sorry, a little off topic, but it's a pet peeve of mine when Jewish statements about Jews are extrapolated to try to show us as hypocrites when we don't apply them to everyone.
That's not my zionism. To me it's about fulfilling the ingathering of the exiles I pray for 3 times a day.
One might just as easily say- a lot more easily, in fact- that something else happened up until 1945 that made it quite clear that it is absolutely immoral not to let Jews be sovereign on every single square centimeter they can get their hands on.
Oh, you know what else happened in 1945? Tens of millions of people were relocated- Germans kicked out Poland and Czechoslovakia, Hindus kicked out Pakistan and Muslims out of India, Jews out of every Arab country...
Curious which number you consider yourself and why?
Infographics are the worst sort of thing for AI to generate, at least in 2024. Reccommend you seek a human graphic artist to help or pick another strategy. That thing hurts to look at.
Bar Kochba's error was not in assuming the Jews could beat Rome --- his early victories were nothing short of spectacular --- but in insisting that such initial successes warranted his being declared Moshiach by his forces:
--- thereby losing, subsequently, much of his erstwhile support (not least, incidentally, from that of the "Nazarene" Jews, who believed, rightly or wrongly, that they already had FOUND the 'Messiah').
"There are stateless peoples everywhere, so there is no need to give them citizenship". I think that B is more accurately: what people are you talking about? I don't see those people. I don't really know; I just want to live in peace. What have I got to do with that. No Israeli thinks that democracy and the right to vote are not important and who cares about that. They just don't spend too much time thinking about other groups.
So to make it clear, extreme position A includes the right to simply murder Palestinians as well as assassinate prime ministers who move towards any kind of negotiated solution. Unfortunately, extreme position A is in the Israeli government now an in charge of many policies related to Palestinians.
This is why I think the labeling of the 7 positions isn't all that good. In A, "...Jews have a God-given right to the entire Biblical Land. Israel should annex Judea and Samaria (and ideally part of Lebanon too), and should force all potentially hostile non-Jews out of it by any means necessary. ...". The latter part of that statement is why I assume you believe that "...the right to simply murder Palestinians...".
As for myself, I agree with everything up to "... and should force all..." but not including that. How would we implement my vision? I have no idea. Maybe we just need to wait for Mashiach to come and we'll see it happening.
I am personally against all violence unless my life is threatened. But I'm also not naive. There are lots of people in the world that want us dead and just need an opportunity.
In reality, I think I'm a little of A, B and C. Think we need to create a G for that combo.
As a non-Israeli Jew, I fall very squarely into the D category. I lean towards C when I'm more pessimistic and D when I'm less so, but from BOTH a moral and pragmatic standpoint, D seems like the only real option. E only works if the pragmatic steps in D are taken and C seems to me to just be more of the current status quo, which I'm not convinced is either doable or correct.
I meant "E when I'm less so" not "D when I'm less so".
This is fascinating, because it seems like I am not what I thought I was...!
What about religious opposition to the state of Israel?