Global politics

[Mindy]

[Psy-Fi]

Putin running for reelection, almost sure to win another 6-year term

[Jwb]

I wanted to respond to you. Jadis. But I figured I would move the discussion to this thread where it seems more relevant.

C'mon man... we can revive it. You, me and the pseudo-lesbian...

I'll consider it.  Are there no rules at all over there now? Like for instance can I be openly anti Semitic or do I have to stick to cryptofash sealioning? :p

What are the US interests in the region though (apart from good relations with the owners of the oil pumps, who are gravitating toward Israel anyway)? It's not a particularly straightforward question. During the Cold War it was a matter of supporting a democracy (however troubled) against the alliance between a bunch of Arab dictatorships and the Soviets. I think some of it holds surprisingly true for today, for all that changed.

It is not a straightforward  question but often it seems to be treated as such.  As if the fact that we are close allies means that our interests are one in the same.

Because as I mentioned the support we give them is not based on some strict strategic analysis. It's largely based on the domestic sentiment in the US toward Israel,  whether you happen to agree with that sentiment or not I would hope we could agree that is ultimately where our undying support stems from. 

Now we can agree it's not straight forward in any region exactly what our interests in that region are.  This is especially true in the middle east.

So it's subjective for example whether you think it was wise for Obama to pursue the JCPOA with Iran.  But it's not subjective that Netanyahu fiercely opposed it and made his stance firmly known. 

So here we can get a clear example where at the very least a US administration had an agenda that Israeli leadership clearly opposed, and rather than fall in line anyway and try to work with the US on pursuing what it thought was a smart path forward,  Netanyahu openly antagonized Obama. Even though we are the clear benefactor in the relationship, all the aid we give doesn't translate to much on terms of actual leverage.

They don't for a second ask the question, how does our unbending stance towards Iran undermine what the United states is trying to do? That would admittedly be an absurd question to ask if you are living in Israel and convinced that Iran cannot be trusted or negotiated with. 

On the flip side,  invariably if you talk to zionists in the United states the idea is well they live over there and it's the only democracy in the middle east and blah blah blah.  Anything and everything to make it all work out for Israel.

Then, when a US president tries to do something that an Israeli prime minister disagrees with,  that prime Minister and his cohorts can make the rounds on American cable news accusing said President of being "bad for Israel" Which in American politics is really no less severe a charge than saying he's "bad for America." If anything the Israel line would get more traction.

So not only do we appear to not have much leverage based on all the aid we give,  it appears to me they have much more of an ability to influence our path than we do theirs.

Re the Holocaust, let's not forget the expulsion of some 800,000 Jews from Arab and Muslim countries in the subsequent decades.

I didn't forget.  I think that makes the argument that creating a Jewish state in Palestine is about keeping the jews safe even weaker.

It's not like the middle east has the same deep history of pogroms and antisemitism that Christian europe did.  Clearly something changed in the 20th century.

But I agree there's a paradox here: on October 7 Israel was clearly the least safe place in the world to be a Jew; and yet a month later Jewish friends in Montreal started talking about Aliyah, (the "I'm not antisemitic, just antizionist" mobs in Montreal are so fucking bad). 
https://www.france24.com/en/video/20231116-montreal-jewish-community-in-shock-over-synagogue-firebombing-school-shootings

I don't want to say too much here but for many it's a matter of wishing to live without having to hide the signs of their Jewishness, which is becoming increasingly difficult in France especially.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/02/antisemitism-jews-france-emmanuel-macron-israel-hamas-war

I think the challenge is on us to try to understand the painful nature of anti-Jewish persecution. 

I can get having a knee jerk reaction to cringe protesters. But let's get real.  If someone in Montreal
is  seriously considering moving to Israel right now out of a concern for safety, I think they've lost the plot.

I can get wanting a Jewish state just because you want to be the predominant in group and not just a marginalized minority. But I don't think that's at all unique to them.  That's every nationalist movement.

Re "the experiment"... Antisemitism always morphs and adjusts. Once the Jews were hated for their religion, then for their "race" and now it's for their state (takes an idiot to think that antisemitism always comes dressed in SS uniform). We should remind ourselves it's the problem of the antisemites, not Jews.

I'm sorry but the perpetual victim narrative isn't working.  They have a state now.  They're in power. They're not the oppressed masses of a polish ghetto. They're a first world country. They are "the only democracy in the middle east." So that comes with certain expectations,  believe it or not.  And the fact is that they are now in the position to oppress millions of stateless Arabs. My sympathy is rapidly waning for "the most persecuted people on earth," and if anything telling people that you have to choose between either 1) loving Israel or 2) being an antisemite, the result of that sort of false dichotomy is just going to push people in the direction of antisemitism.

[Mindy]

[jadis]

@Jwb I'll be responding gradually cause some of these topics are bottomless, and I take this shit seriously.

First of all, I suspect you're a Zionist yourself, in the sense that you don't wish to see the annihilation of the only Jewish state in the world. That's what that word means today https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/100047-its-news-5.html#post2235554

 

[Jwb]

@Jwb I'll be responding gradually cause some of these topics are bottomless, and I take this shit seriously.

First of all, I suspect you're a Zionist yourself, in the sense that you don't wish to see the annihilation of the only Jewish state in the world. That's what that word means today https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/100047-its-news-5.html#post2235554

 

OK well I read the post on MB you linked and  there's quite a bit in there to address,  but I feel like since you said you're going to be responding gradually,  I'm not going to go on another list of tangents based on that MB post. Rather,  if there is a particular point in there you want a response to you can let me know and I'll oblige.

Now to answer your question.. I really don't want to get caught up in semantics but I feel like zionist implies a particular dedication to the idea of the necessity of a Jewish state.  That is not an idea that particularly resonates with me.

I'm not in favor of getting rid of the state of Israel.  But that's based on pragmatism.  They live there and basically you are talking about potentially displacing millions of people. So that has nothing at all to do with the jews deserving a state in Palestine. Its the same basic level of human rights and consideration that should be granted to any people.  Including the Palestinians.

[jadis]

OK well I read the post on MB you linked and  there's quite a bit in there to address,  but I feel like since you said you're going to be responding gradually,  I'm not going to go on another list of tangents based on that MB post. Rather,  if there is a particular point in there you want a response to you can let me know and I'll oblige.

Now to answer your question.. I really don't want to get caught up in semantics but I feel like zionist implies a particular dedication to the idea of the necessity of a Jewish state.  That is not an idea that particularly resonates with me.

I'm not in favor of getting rid of the state of Israel.  But that's based on pragmatism.  They live there and basically you are talking about potentially displacing millions of people. So that has nothing at all to do with the jews deserving a state in Palestine. Its the same basic level of human rights and consideration that should be granted to any people.  Including the Palestinians.

Feel free to address the MB post, I'm interested in what you find contentios about it. I'm for keeping this discussion as free form as possible so that many different points can be raised and there's an exchange of information and opinion that allows one to reframe things and not get stuck in the same blind alleys.

Semantics is very important here though. The way the Z word is being bandied around smuggles in the sense that an opposition to it, something called "anti-Zionist", is a legitimate position. It's not. It's an eliminationist lunacy, either dressed up in a liberationist word salad or transparently jihadist. Actually, it's increasingly both at the same time (as people try to negotiate the gap between their Fanon quotes and the honest, no-nonsense jihadism of Hamas, illiterate mass murderers who don't give a shit about the woke alibi for killing Jews). I get that it makes no sense to group you (or me, for that matter) under the same umbrella as Dersh or whoever is the most vocal and visible advocate of Israel in the US these days. Maybe we can talk about upper case and low case Z, dunno. But it's important to be aware of and NOT take on board the massive amount of accumulated bs weighing down on this word.

[Marie Monday]

@Jwb I really don't think that it's fair to have the same degree of consideration for the Jewish people having a state as for any other group of people. Jewish people historically face a particular threat outside a country of their own, and taking that into account is important (the same goes for any other group of people in a similar position, but I don't think any other group faces as global and enduring a threat). Otherwise I agree with your opinion on the existence of Israel (anyone deserving a state is nonsense) but I do think jadis is right about the semantics thing

[Nimbly9]

The state of Israel has the right to exist, yo. Think of all the crap Moses went through. 

[Marie Monday]

[Jwb]

@Jwb I really don't think that it's fair to have the same degree of consideration for the Jewish people having a state as for any other group of people. Jewish people historically face a particular threat outside a country of their own, and taking that into account is important (the same goes for any other group of people in a similar position, but I don't think any other group faces as global and enduring a threat). Otherwise I agree with your opinion on the existence of Israel (anyone deserving a state is nonsense) but I do think jadis is right about the semantics thing

You don't think it's fair, but try to understand what I was saying and tell me which part you actually disagree with:

@jadis told me that I was a zionist because I don't want to annihilate the state of Israel. I simply pointed out that me not wanting to annihilate Israel is not based on any dedication to the idea of the necessity of a Jewish homeland as a safe haven for Jews,  but just based sheerly on the pragmatic circumstances of the matter. They exist now and millions of people live there,  regardless of any of the historical circumstances.  That's why I wouldn't support annihilating the state of Israel , and yes that's the same logic that applies in my eyes to virtually every regime on the planet.  There's nothing unique about my stance on Israel, in that regard.

Also, sorry if this part sounds especially unfair, but the historical persecution of the jews literally has nothing to do with my stance, in this regard.   Even if they had never faced any persecution throughout their entire history, that wouldn't change my position on whether the state of Israel should be annihilated.

Pointing out said persecution would be relevant if I bought into the argument that the persecution they historically faced made the creation of a Jewish homeland a necessity in order to provide a safe haven for Jews.  I have already given my thoughts on why that argument doesn't convince me.  Given that I don't adhere to this line of thinking,  nor do I think the Jews' ancient cultural ties to the land entitled them to attempt to make a Jewish state there, it seems strange to insist that I am a zionist based merely on the lack of a desire to annihilate Israel.

Another aspect to consider is that technically,  if there was a possible one state solution where it wasn't the state of Israel but was replaced with a representative democracy that gave full rights to all residents, assuming they would be peaceful about it,   I certainly wouldn't oppose it. Obviously I realize that isn't really a pragmatically feasible scenario given the antipathy on both sides for one another,  but again,  this is a mere pragmatic consideration. Not an ideological principle.

[Nimbly9]

Another aspect to consider is that technically,  if there was a possible one state solution where it wasn't the state of Israel but was replaced with a representative democracy that gave full rights to all residents, assuming they would be peaceful about it,   I certainly wouldn't oppose it. Obviously I realize that isn't really a pragmatically feasible scenario given the antipathy on both sides for one another,  but again,  this is a mere pragmatic consideration. Not an ideological principle.

Israel doesn't seem to believe in the idea of a melting pot democracy, and considering the part of the world they occupy it isn't that hard to understand why they feel that way.  It would be nice to think that they could become a real "representative democracy" at some point in the not-so-distant future though.

Worst party ever.

[Jwb]

Feel free to address the MB post, I'm interested in what you find contentios about it. I'm for keeping this discussion as free form as possible so that many different points can be raised and there's an exchange of information and opinion that allows one to reframe things and not get stuck in the same blind alleys.

Semantics is very important here though. The way the Z word is being bandied around smuggles in the sense that an opposition to it, something called "anti-Zionist", is a legitimate position. It's not. It's an eliminationist lunacy, either dressed up in a liberationist word salad or transparently jihadist. Actually, it's increasingly both at the same time (as people try to negotiate the gap between their Fanon quotes and the honest, no-nonsense jihadism of Hamas, illiterate mass murderers who don't give a shit about the woke alibi for killing Jews). I get that it makes no sense to group you (or me, for that matter) under the same umbrella as Dersh or whoever is the most vocal and visible advocate of Israel in the US these days. Maybe we can talk about upper case and low case Z, dunno. But it's important to be aware of and NOT take on board the massive amount of accumulated bs weighing down on this word.

I've frequently heard people say the anti-zionist line and my interpretation is that the way the term is understood in colloquial use is that zionist/anti-zionist are just used interchangeably with terms like pro-israel and pro-palestine. The vast majority of people who I've heard say they were against zionism would nonetheless agree with me that Israel shouldn't be annihilated.

You can argue these terms are being widely misused, and frankly it seems like you and I don't even see eye to eye on how the term should be used,  but I think that potential disagreement is far from the top of the list of the more meaningful and interesting differences we probably have.  Which is why I said the thing about not getting bogged down in semantics.  Not because I don't think it's important at all, but to a certain extent I do think these labels are more likely to serve as a distraction from the more meaningful discourse.

However,  you do seem to suggest it's not just a matter of misuse but some more deliberate attempt to legitimize genocidal thinking.  That could be an interesting angle if you could actually substantiate it.  But other than that I find the question of who is or isn't a zionist much less worthy of attention than the basic question of what is to be done.

[Marie Monday]

You don't think it's fair, but try to understand what I was saying and tell me which part you actually disagree with:

@jadis told me that I was a zionist because I don't want to annihilate the state of Israel. I simply pointed out that me not wanting to annihilate Israel is not based on any dedication to the idea of the necessity of a Jewish homeland as a safe haven for Jews,  but just based sheerly on the pragmatic circumstances of the matter. They exist now and millions of people live there,  regardless of any of the historical circumstances.  That's why I wouldn't support annihilating the state of Israel , and yes that's the same logic that applies in my eyes to virtually every regime on the planet.  There's nothing unique about my stance on Israel, in that regard.

Also, sorry if this part sounds especially unfair, but the historical persecution of the jews literally has nothing to do with my stance, in this regard.   Even if they had never faced any persecution throughout their entire history, that wouldn't change my position on whether the state of Israel should be annihilated.

Pointing out said persecution would be relevant if I bought into the argument that the persecution they historically faced made the creation of a Jewish homeland a necessity in order to provide a safe haven for Jews.  I have already given my thoughts on why that argument doesn't convince me.  Given that I don't adhere to this line of thinking,  nor do I think the Jews' ancient cultural ties to the land entitled them to attempt to make a Jewish state there, it seems strange to insist that I am a zionist based merely on the lack of a desire to annihilate Israel.

Another aspect to consider is that technically,  if there was a possible one state solution where it wasn't the state of Israel but was replaced with a representative democracy that gave full rights to all residents, assuming they would be peaceful about it,   I certainly wouldn't oppose it. Obviously I realize that isn't really a pragmatically feasible scenario given the antipathy on both sides for one another,  but again,  this is a mere pragmatic consideration. Not an ideological principle.

I don't really want to debate but suffice to say the use of the word anti-zionist is manipulated by antisemites with the goal of having it seem like everyone who doesnt believe in the traditional religious jewish homeland is on their side and having their own position seem acceptable. That means we should be careful with it, and 'anti' also implies something far less neutral than you are. Anyway I'm sure jadis knows more about that than I do. I haven't followed the discussion but I'd genuinely like to read your thoughts on why a Jewish state is not strongly desirable (if not necessary) for their safety and stability

[jadis]

I can get having a knee jerk reaction to cringe protesters. But let's get real.  If someone in Montreal
is  seriously considering moving to Israel right now out of a concern for safety, I think they've lost the plot.

How about Jews in Melbourne? Does a spike in antisemitic abuse by 738 percent entitle you to seriously consider moving to Israel or are you still deluded if you do?

ECAJ co-CEO Alex Ryvchin said Jewish families were now being forced to have "difficult conversations" about their place in Australia.

"Parents are speaking to their children about not disclosing their Jewishness in public, about hiding Jewish attire and symbols," he said.