You don’t. Cynicism is the basis for advocating annexation and ethnic cleansing. It also involves a lack of imagination and being delusional about such a plan’s feasibility, but I digress.
Well, first of all I preface by saying that I actively chose to join the religious zionist community (I made Aliya from New York). Secondly, even though I feel some of us still lack realistic long-term thinking, I still believe that our communitys ideals and worldview are the closest to authentiv Torah- true Judaism. For example, we are the ones who acknowledge that God has fulfilled his promise of the ingathering of the exiles.
I do however believe, that if Israel gets a stronger Jewish identity, we may have more of a standing in responding to the Arabs. I read Yehuda Hakohens vision magazine for example, and it rings true that the hard-core "settlers" understand the Arabs better and may very well be the ones to make peace with them. As long as it's coming from a place of confidence and strength, and not western weakness, I think we do ultimately have a shot.
A shot at the Arabs agreeing to live under us. I am willing to grant Palestinians citizenship as long as they give up their aspirations of destroying or subverting my country. Until then, zero tolerance.
I see this only being feasible if only Area C were annexed, thus not upending Israel's demographics by adding millions of Arabs. And if Area C is destined to be annexed, then fair enough. I leave it to the right to figure out how to rule that population in a way appropriate for a liberal democracy.
You are an excellent writer. There are days where I wish I had kept my Hebrew up beyond college, and days where I am grateful that I didn’t, because then I wouldn’t have to understand how delusional and racist the people guiding Israel’s future are. But now I have you to explain it for me anyway!
>The only thing belief in God does clearly entail is support for territorial expansion by means of military aggression, and faith in God is apparently co-extensive with faith in that. I don’t want to say that what these people mean by God is some kind of externalised representation of racial narcissism, but I already just said that, so it’s too late.
Just on a more basic level, it's that God's only precept is that they do whatever it is they wanted to do anyway. You never meet a settler who thinks going to war against the whole world to ethnically cleanse the Levant is a bad idea or unfair to the Arabs but nebach what can you do, the torah commands us to do this. There's no trade offs. What I want to do = what God wants us to do = what is actually the most security conscious thing to do = is also best for the economy = is best for the world = is best for the heavenly spheres, etc.
This is generally true, but the Har haMor crowd, who have one MK who is sometimes a government minister, actually see their role partly as preparing the nation to be able to bear the economic consequences of pursuing their grand vision in the short to medium term, and, for that reason, advocate gradualism against Kahanist total-war-right-now politics. When I was a Kahanist, I thought they were just phoneys or dumb, but I think they actually might kind of be legit. And they are also sincere in their religious faith too.
I don't think they even want to take over. They want to push Israel into ever greater aggression. As to what that looks like, I guess it looks a lot like what we have now.
Something I can’t really get Israeli Rightniks to understand is that Western Liberals are never, ever going to come around to believing Jews have an ethnic or religious right to rule the land, because a foundational belief of Western Liberalism is that legitimate government is based in the consent of the governed and not on religion or ethnicity. Indeed they think such concepts are a vile relic of the worst part of the 20th century. What’s so absurd about this refusal is that ~Israel can legitimately claim this democratic basis for its sovereignty anyway.~ But then, it can’t be a basis for claiming sovereignty over the West Bank while there are millions of non-Jews living there, so such democratic ideas have to be ignored at all costs.
I think you've touched on one of the big differences between American liberalism and progressivism. Liberalism holds up the consent of the governed, but progressivism (as part of opposing colonialism) holds up the rights of indigenous as locally superior to others'. Except for us Jews, who according to them are indigenous nowhere.
I often tell people you can identify all crazies in American politics with two simple questions. Are Jews White? Was Jesus? You can be friends with anyone who gives you the same answer to both.
And you can console yourself about the plight of being a diaspora Jew in this era by laughing off such people’s stupidity. Antisemitism overlaps greatly with stupidity, but they’re by no means coextensive.
Don't have much to say about the rest of the article, but those are some beautiful buildings that Mrs. snapped. Thanks for sharing! I wish we had more of those here in America.
I think you exagerate the ugliness of Tel Aviv. I was there working as a postdoc. It sure is not Paris, Jerusalem certainly looks far better, but really it is not that bad. It just looks like a modern city, and as far as those go, it is definitely one of the nicer ones. I would definitely live there had Israeli academia wanted me.
Mrs Non-Zionism here. Jerusalem is about to get 500 18-storey plus high-rises and they're ditching the compulsory stone cladding. The older bits of TA are nice and some of the newer stuff is low enough to be obscured by vegetation. But high-rises in terrible colour schemes are much harder to disguise.
No, the red one is at Tzomet Herzliya and the other one I don't remember. But the new buildings going up in Jlem don't look particularly nice. I havent yet seen something so bad in Jlem but what are the chances amongst 500 new buildings they will not build something with outrageously coloured cladding?
"His case is simple: Bibi promised ‘absolute victory’ and the ‘destruction of Hamas’ and instead he signed up to, well, no-one really knows, but not that. " Just curious - really! Not trolling, really! Hasn't anyone studied this thing called "counter-insurgency"? I'll leave it there.
The ABC of counter-insurgency is that it requires a political programme to induce rebels to give up, and 'leave so we can take your house' isn't really such a political programme.
The main point about counterinsurgent wars is that unless you’re willing to do a Japan in the Philippines, they don’t work. The only way to “destroy Hamas” is to commit genocide. That’s not on the table. You’re stuck with Hamas, or Hamas II, or the Ladies Auxiliary of Hamas, or the Gaza Motorcycle Club.
You are mixing up different things. While a quicker retaliation would have been better both for tactical and also PR reasons, it wasn't done because the military wasn't ready and because they didn't want to risk IDF casualties. It is the extreme casualty aversion of the IDF, maybe unique in the history of military powers, that is its true achilles heel. It had nothing to do with hostages. The hostage issue was real, but it only comes in later. You should take a 6 month break from reading rightoid news sources to clear your head, and only then you can maybe go back to read them profitably.
Much of the military casualties can be averted by bombing, there are tunnels but the mass casualties would probably overwhelm the enemy. Then we can move in the big tanks and shoot those coming out of the tunnels till Hamas surrenders. Theyd think twice after a good 200,000 go up in smoke. Gaza is a small area. Shouldnt be hard to completely wipe out.
The reason Israel did not kill 10% of the population of Gaza in indiscriminate airstrikes is because doing so would have resulted in it being considered in the same general category as the Janjaweed, and as a result, being subjected to total international isolation. That on its own is sufficient deterrent for most Israelis, but even for those who it is not, the resultant economic crisis, collapse of the healthcare system etc. would have got the message across.
However, even if Israel was willing to do that it still wouldn't have forced Hamas to surrender because, in fact, two years of razing the Gaza strip didn't force them to do that, so you would be back saying 'we need to kill 400,000', and, if you got your way then it would be 600,000 etc.
I fear that my suggestion of taking a six month break from brainrot is not sufficient. Perhaps try pouring bleach in your ears.
Ok, this was genuinely funny and I say this as a right-wing religious zionist myself.
How did you get to this point without becoming cynical?
You don’t. Cynicism is the basis for advocating annexation and ethnic cleansing. It also involves a lack of imagination and being delusional about such a plan’s feasibility, but I digress.
Sounds more like idealism than cynicism. And annexation doesn't have to be accompanied by ethnic cleansing.
Well, first of all I preface by saying that I actively chose to join the religious zionist community (I made Aliya from New York). Secondly, even though I feel some of us still lack realistic long-term thinking, I still believe that our communitys ideals and worldview are the closest to authentiv Torah- true Judaism. For example, we are the ones who acknowledge that God has fulfilled his promise of the ingathering of the exiles.
I do however believe, that if Israel gets a stronger Jewish identity, we may have more of a standing in responding to the Arabs. I read Yehuda Hakohens vision magazine for example, and it rings true that the hard-core "settlers" understand the Arabs better and may very well be the ones to make peace with them. As long as it's coming from a place of confidence and strength, and not western weakness, I think we do ultimately have a shot.
A shot at what? Divine redemption?
A shot at the Arabs agreeing to live under us. I am willing to grant Palestinians citizenship as long as they give up their aspirations of destroying or subverting my country. Until then, zero tolerance.
I see this only being feasible if only Area C were annexed, thus not upending Israel's demographics by adding millions of Arabs. And if Area C is destined to be annexed, then fair enough. I leave it to the right to figure out how to rule that population in a way appropriate for a liberal democracy.
I'm willing to gradually add millions of Arabs if they're loyal. No need for them to be under a corrupt pro-terror PA.
You are an excellent writer. There are days where I wish I had kept my Hebrew up beyond college, and days where I am grateful that I didn’t, because then I wouldn’t have to understand how delusional and racist the people guiding Israel’s future are. But now I have you to explain it for me anyway!
>The only thing belief in God does clearly entail is support for territorial expansion by means of military aggression, and faith in God is apparently co-extensive with faith in that. I don’t want to say that what these people mean by God is some kind of externalised representation of racial narcissism, but I already just said that, so it’s too late.
Just on a more basic level, it's that God's only precept is that they do whatever it is they wanted to do anyway. You never meet a settler who thinks going to war against the whole world to ethnically cleanse the Levant is a bad idea or unfair to the Arabs but nebach what can you do, the torah commands us to do this. There's no trade offs. What I want to do = what God wants us to do = what is actually the most security conscious thing to do = is also best for the economy = is best for the world = is best for the heavenly spheres, etc.
This is generally true, but the Har haMor crowd, who have one MK who is sometimes a government minister, actually see their role partly as preparing the nation to be able to bear the economic consequences of pursuing their grand vision in the short to medium term, and, for that reason, advocate gradualism against Kahanist total-war-right-now politics. When I was a Kahanist, I thought they were just phoneys or dumb, but I think they actually might kind of be legit. And they are also sincere in their religious faith too.
What chance do you think they’d have of colossally fucking up if they were to gain power and carry their plan out?
I don't think they even want to take over. They want to push Israel into ever greater aggression. As to what that looks like, I guess it looks a lot like what we have now.
Yes, but they've imbibed these values from religious instruction.
Something I can’t really get Israeli Rightniks to understand is that Western Liberals are never, ever going to come around to believing Jews have an ethnic or religious right to rule the land, because a foundational belief of Western Liberalism is that legitimate government is based in the consent of the governed and not on religion or ethnicity. Indeed they think such concepts are a vile relic of the worst part of the 20th century. What’s so absurd about this refusal is that ~Israel can legitimately claim this democratic basis for its sovereignty anyway.~ But then, it can’t be a basis for claiming sovereignty over the West Bank while there are millions of non-Jews living there, so such democratic ideas have to be ignored at all costs.
I think you've touched on one of the big differences between American liberalism and progressivism. Liberalism holds up the consent of the governed, but progressivism (as part of opposing colonialism) holds up the rights of indigenous as locally superior to others'. Except for us Jews, who according to them are indigenous nowhere.
I often tell people you can identify all crazies in American politics with two simple questions. Are Jews White? Was Jesus? You can be friends with anyone who gives you the same answer to both.
And you can console yourself about the plight of being a diaspora Jew in this era by laughing off such people’s stupidity. Antisemitism overlaps greatly with stupidity, but they’re by no means coextensive.
How much better the world would be for us if stupid implied not dangerous!
Dangerousness overlaps greatly with stupidity, but they're by no means coextensive.
Dont forget europeans, we're not indigenous anywhere either according to the WEF-globohomos
Don't have much to say about the rest of the article, but those are some beautiful buildings that Mrs. snapped. Thanks for sharing! I wish we had more of those here in America.
You need brain surgery.
I think you exagerate the ugliness of Tel Aviv. I was there working as a postdoc. It sure is not Paris, Jerusalem certainly looks far better, but really it is not that bad. It just looks like a modern city, and as far as those go, it is definitely one of the nicer ones. I would definitely live there had Israeli academia wanted me.
Mrs Non-Zionism here. Jerusalem is about to get 500 18-storey plus high-rises and they're ditching the compulsory stone cladding. The older bits of TA are nice and some of the newer stuff is low enough to be obscured by vegetation. But high-rises in terrible colour schemes are much harder to disguise.
Is the picture above one of these new buildings?
No, the red one is at Tzomet Herzliya and the other one I don't remember. But the new buildings going up in Jlem don't look particularly nice. I havent yet seen something so bad in Jlem but what are the chances amongst 500 new buildings they will not build something with outrageously coloured cladding?
(Idiocy as ideology + inverted morality) x shortsighted hyper-violent political actions^molech worship = the upcoming coup and wave of genocide
You are a modern day moron
"His case is simple: Bibi promised ‘absolute victory’ and the ‘destruction of Hamas’ and instead he signed up to, well, no-one really knows, but not that. " Just curious - really! Not trolling, really! Hasn't anyone studied this thing called "counter-insurgency"? I'll leave it there.
The ABC of counter-insurgency is that it requires a political programme to induce rebels to give up, and 'leave so we can take your house' isn't really such a political programme.
The main point about counterinsurgent wars is that unless you’re willing to do a Japan in the Philippines, they don’t work. The only way to “destroy Hamas” is to commit genocide. That’s not on the table. You’re stuck with Hamas, or Hamas II, or the Ladies Auxiliary of Hamas, or the Gaza Motorcycle Club.
Because he prioritized the hostages, at the expense of the nation.
Do you actually believe that? What would he have done different without prioritising the hostages that would have led to total victory?
An imediate overwheliming retaliation from day 1. it should have lasted two weeks. Russia would have found a way. So would China.
You are mixing up different things. While a quicker retaliation would have been better both for tactical and also PR reasons, it wasn't done because the military wasn't ready and because they didn't want to risk IDF casualties. It is the extreme casualty aversion of the IDF, maybe unique in the history of military powers, that is its true achilles heel. It had nothing to do with hostages. The hostage issue was real, but it only comes in later. You should take a 6 month break from reading rightoid news sources to clear your head, and only then you can maybe go back to read them profitably.
Much of the military casualties can be averted by bombing, there are tunnels but the mass casualties would probably overwhelm the enemy. Then we can move in the big tanks and shoot those coming out of the tunnels till Hamas surrenders. Theyd think twice after a good 200,000 go up in smoke. Gaza is a small area. Shouldnt be hard to completely wipe out.
The reason Israel did not kill 10% of the population of Gaza in indiscriminate airstrikes is because doing so would have resulted in it being considered in the same general category as the Janjaweed, and as a result, being subjected to total international isolation. That on its own is sufficient deterrent for most Israelis, but even for those who it is not, the resultant economic crisis, collapse of the healthcare system etc. would have got the message across.
However, even if Israel was willing to do that it still wouldn't have forced Hamas to surrender because, in fact, two years of razing the Gaza strip didn't force them to do that, so you would be back saying 'we need to kill 400,000', and, if you got your way then it would be 600,000 etc.
I fear that my suggestion of taking a six month break from brainrot is not sufficient. Perhaps try pouring bleach in your ears.
Did Russia “find a way” in Ukraine?