The Druze also insisted on being part of the draft, which e.g. Haviv Rettig Gur has argued made a strong impression on Israeli Jews in general (and, famously, Bibi in particular). "We will put our sons in harm's way for your national project" is the sort of gesture that invites reciprocity.
To add to your Druze example, the Druze are a very small minority, around 1.6% of Israel's population, so their misgivings with Israel can simply be ignored or inflated depending on how Israeli media wants to spin the narrative.
Their small size also means that very few politicians are scrambling to pander to them, instead they pander to what their Jewish audience wants them to think they're willing to do for their blood brothers.
So the Druze being a non demographic or political threat, who are mainly known for serving in the IDF in combat roles ( where manpower is badly needed ), with no true economic power, makes them very easy to tolerate.
> "This is why I don’t criticise stuff like the Palestine Emirates Plan."
Aren't they trying to implement some variant of this in Gaza at the moment? It's probably one of the less bad options, at least if you add the stipulation of "no more Mein Kampf in schools", which seems like a bare minimum the PA should be doing if they want to be taken seriously as peace partners.
Fair points here, though I wouldn't call Israel's failure to incorporate West Bank and Gaza Palestinians "a deficit in Zionism." Israel has 2.1 million Arab citizens, which Zionism has fairly effectively accommodated. What other countries have done better with an 18% Muslim minority?
The problem isn't with Zionism as an ideology, but with the demographic math. It's one thing for a country the size of Russia to incorporate Chechnya. It would be another for, say, Armenia to try ruling over Chechnya. Insofar as Religious Zionism encourages demographic innumeracy, then, yes, this is a deficit. But there are many Zionists still capable of doing the math.
The ideology of Zionism is to build a state in Israel in the 20th century, with all that that entails. You don't get to do your own Math, you have to work with the Math that exists. I write about that here: https://nonzionism.com/p/the-basic-problem-with-zionism
The ideology of Zionism is to build a state in Israel, yes, but "in Israel" doesn't necessarily mean all of Eretz Yisrael. The First Zionist Congress declared that the movement's goal was to create a "publicly and legally secured home in Palestine for the Jewish people." The Balfour Declaration uses similar language regarding a Jewish national home "in Palestine." The British Mandate once included Jordan, so obviously the territorial demarcation of "Palestine" is itself historically contingent.
In other words, sure, Zionism is inherently flawed if it's predicated on the demographic math of Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza. But it doesn't need to be. The sine qua non of Zionism is a Jewish demographic majority, not territorial maximalism. As you note, for 19 years, Israel didn't rule over the Palestinian Territories. There are other ways to break the demographic logjam: two states, Jordanian re-annexation, confederation. All of these solutions have their own flaws, but the choices aren't limited to one state vs status quo vs mass expulsion.
But Israel had to conquer the WB and Gaza because the situation for those 19 years of constant raids was intolerable.
Certainly, there are other choices, but the fact that presently the choice is suppression forever, and that this legitimately appears to be the best choice for the timebeing, is a deficit in Zionism (just because something has a deficit doesn't means it's bad on balance, obviously).
Yeah but Israel didn't have to hold onto the WB and certainly didn't need to build settlements there - that was something Israel decided to do to itself.
It can provide a model if the demographic ratio doesn't fall below what it is today, but that's precisely what incorporating the Palestinians would do.
"The fact that they exist in a state of permanent hostile opposition, active rebellion only prevented by the constant and escalating use of force, shows that Zionism is an objective failure at the task it has been set by history, namely providing a political order that integrates the population of human beings that live within its territory."
Actually, it shows that Palestinian nationalism is an objective failure. Palestinian nationalists have consistently chosen for 58 years to prioritize their doomed quest to destroy Israel over making peace and ending the occupation. That Palestine constantly refuses to make the hard choices and the necessary compromises to make peace with Israel and end the occupation is an objective failure of Palestinian nationalism, not Zionism.
It's an objective failure of both, but in a more fundamental sense, the failures of Palestinian nationalism are the failures of Zionism, because it was Zionism that created Palestinian nationalism.
It's not a failure of Zionism. The historic task of Zionism is not and never has been "a political order that integrates the population of human beings that live within its territory." I don't know where you got that from. The task of Zionism is Jewish self-determination, and living under the rule of an oppressive Arab majority stands in direct opposition to that. Ask the Chechans, they get it
Don't be a dipstick. The task of Zionism is to build a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Therefore you have to figure out what to do with the other people living there. If it's 70 years in and you still haven't figured it out, then you messed up.
They did figure it out, 75 years ago. Divide the land and build the Jewish state in the area with the most Jews and the fewest Arabs. Zionism doesn't require building a Jewish state in ALL the land of Israel. Unfortunately, Palestinian nationalism does require building an Arab state in ALL the land of Palestine, and that's why they're messed up, but again, that has nothing to do with Zionism.
so basically in your argument with stromfag you were definitely wrong - since chechen levels of violence didn't solve anything, and stormfag was partially correct - in the sense that, yes, israel wants more land, but that is not the whole story, it will be a tough order to create a palestinian kadyrov who can keep the lid on things, since it is difficult to imagine a legitimate palestinian government without nationalism, and impossible to have a palestinian nationalism that is not anti-israel. Is that right?
- Part of the series of terrorist attacks in Russia are supposed to have been either false flags, or Putin had the knowledge and let them happen in a bid to reinforce his grip around power and give him enough political capital to finish the Chechen question Yelstin didnt achieve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombings
- Interwar Chechnya was a powder-keg of issues where some retarded Islamist groups attacked independently from the government. Also a coalition of Salafi Muslims sabotaged all efforts of Aslan to bring a proper government and unity necessary to rebuild the Chechen state, a guy has approached the subject objectively in substack https://open.substack.com/pub/robashlar/p/the-role-of-salafi-groups-in-tearing
- The issue with the current arrangement is that imo the Chechen people are rebuilding for a time when they will again achieve independence meaningfully once the Russian empire (which it will) will eventually lose grip through demography kinda like the Soviet Union did at the end. There is significant Chechen dissent silenced by the brutality if Kadyrov and he is also cultivating a backlash towards the Russians via him. For now the relations are ok but Chechens wont hesitate to betray the moment it becomes opportune
- I know this is part of Jewish belief and Abrahamic in general, but the first monotheistic religion is Zoroastroanism. The first unambigous and absolute monotheistic one is indeed Judaism.
- This is the first time I see the Palestinian Emirates idea but it seems like a cool compromise/function long as Israel gives the settlements in those areas to Palestinians (wont happen)
- I came across that in my Wikipedia binge, but I didn't think it was really relevant.
- Zoroastrianism isn't really monotheistic (admittedly nor are most branches of contemporary Judaism), but even if it was, and even if the Jews got the idea from there (which I don't believe), Judaism still gave it to the world, and is also a viable and growing religion today, which makes it cooler.
True on the latter point, but the appartment bombings are truly the event that cemented and started the 2nd Chechen war. The other ones happened after the start of the war or after the main part was finished (1998 to 2000).
Charles Napier, the British general who conquered the Sindh province in what is now Pakistan said two things that are relevant here:
"So perverse is mankind that every nationality prefers to be misgoverned by its own people than to be well ruled by another."
And
"The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards."
The Druze also insisted on being part of the draft, which e.g. Haviv Rettig Gur has argued made a strong impression on Israeli Jews in general (and, famously, Bibi in particular). "We will put our sons in harm's way for your national project" is the sort of gesture that invites reciprocity.
To add to your Druze example, the Druze are a very small minority, around 1.6% of Israel's population, so their misgivings with Israel can simply be ignored or inflated depending on how Israeli media wants to spin the narrative.
Their small size also means that very few politicians are scrambling to pander to them, instead they pander to what their Jewish audience wants them to think they're willing to do for their blood brothers.
So the Druze being a non demographic or political threat, who are mainly known for serving in the IDF in combat roles ( where manpower is badly needed ), with no true economic power, makes them very easy to tolerate.
> "This is why I don’t criticise stuff like the Palestine Emirates Plan."
Aren't they trying to implement some variant of this in Gaza at the moment? It's probably one of the less bad options, at least if you add the stipulation of "no more Mein Kampf in schools", which seems like a bare minimum the PA should be doing if they want to be taken seriously as peace partners.
Fair points here, though I wouldn't call Israel's failure to incorporate West Bank and Gaza Palestinians "a deficit in Zionism." Israel has 2.1 million Arab citizens, which Zionism has fairly effectively accommodated. What other countries have done better with an 18% Muslim minority?
The problem isn't with Zionism as an ideology, but with the demographic math. It's one thing for a country the size of Russia to incorporate Chechnya. It would be another for, say, Armenia to try ruling over Chechnya. Insofar as Religious Zionism encourages demographic innumeracy, then, yes, this is a deficit. But there are many Zionists still capable of doing the math.
The ideology of Zionism is to build a state in Israel in the 20th century, with all that that entails. You don't get to do your own Math, you have to work with the Math that exists. I write about that here: https://nonzionism.com/p/the-basic-problem-with-zionism
The ideology of Zionism is to build a state in Israel, yes, but "in Israel" doesn't necessarily mean all of Eretz Yisrael. The First Zionist Congress declared that the movement's goal was to create a "publicly and legally secured home in Palestine for the Jewish people." The Balfour Declaration uses similar language regarding a Jewish national home "in Palestine." The British Mandate once included Jordan, so obviously the territorial demarcation of "Palestine" is itself historically contingent.
In other words, sure, Zionism is inherently flawed if it's predicated on the demographic math of Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza. But it doesn't need to be. The sine qua non of Zionism is a Jewish demographic majority, not territorial maximalism. As you note, for 19 years, Israel didn't rule over the Palestinian Territories. There are other ways to break the demographic logjam: two states, Jordanian re-annexation, confederation. All of these solutions have their own flaws, but the choices aren't limited to one state vs status quo vs mass expulsion.
But Israel had to conquer the WB and Gaza because the situation for those 19 years of constant raids was intolerable.
Certainly, there are other choices, but the fact that presently the choice is suppression forever, and that this legitimately appears to be the best choice for the timebeing, is a deficit in Zionism (just because something has a deficit doesn't means it's bad on balance, obviously).
Yeah but Israel didn't have to hold onto the WB and certainly didn't need to build settlements there - that was something Israel decided to do to itself.
True and shamir shouldn't have said no to London agreement
How successful is the integration of Arab citizens of Israel surely that can provide a model to an extent
It can provide a model if the demographic ratio doesn't fall below what it is today, but that's precisely what incorporating the Palestinians would do.
To what extent do you think current Arab Israelis are integrated ? There is obvs hasbara slop exaggerating
"The fact that they exist in a state of permanent hostile opposition, active rebellion only prevented by the constant and escalating use of force, shows that Zionism is an objective failure at the task it has been set by history, namely providing a political order that integrates the population of human beings that live within its territory."
Actually, it shows that Palestinian nationalism is an objective failure. Palestinian nationalists have consistently chosen for 58 years to prioritize their doomed quest to destroy Israel over making peace and ending the occupation. That Palestine constantly refuses to make the hard choices and the necessary compromises to make peace with Israel and end the occupation is an objective failure of Palestinian nationalism, not Zionism.
It's an objective failure of both, but in a more fundamental sense, the failures of Palestinian nationalism are the failures of Zionism, because it was Zionism that created Palestinian nationalism.
It's not a failure of Zionism. The historic task of Zionism is not and never has been "a political order that integrates the population of human beings that live within its territory." I don't know where you got that from. The task of Zionism is Jewish self-determination, and living under the rule of an oppressive Arab majority stands in direct opposition to that. Ask the Chechans, they get it
Don't be a dipstick. The task of Zionism is to build a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Therefore you have to figure out what to do with the other people living there. If it's 70 years in and you still haven't figured it out, then you messed up.
They did figure it out, 75 years ago. Divide the land and build the Jewish state in the area with the most Jews and the fewest Arabs. Zionism doesn't require building a Jewish state in ALL the land of Israel. Unfortunately, Palestinian nationalism does require building an Arab state in ALL the land of Palestine, and that's why they're messed up, but again, that has nothing to do with Zionism.
Obviously it does. You can pilpul away many things, but you can't pilpul away 5 million people.
so basically in your argument with stromfag you were definitely wrong - since chechen levels of violence didn't solve anything, and stormfag was partially correct - in the sense that, yes, israel wants more land, but that is not the whole story, it will be a tough order to create a palestinian kadyrov who can keep the lid on things, since it is difficult to imagine a legitimate palestinian government without nationalism, and impossible to have a palestinian nationalism that is not anti-israel. Is that right?
Yes.
would like to request the hashemite kingdom of jordan to come back, all is forgiven
Banger post with many issues tho:
- Part of the series of terrorist attacks in Russia are supposed to have been either false flags, or Putin had the knowledge and let them happen in a bid to reinforce his grip around power and give him enough political capital to finish the Chechen question Yelstin didnt achieve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Russian_apartment_bombings
- Interwar Chechnya was a powder-keg of issues where some retarded Islamist groups attacked independently from the government. Also a coalition of Salafi Muslims sabotaged all efforts of Aslan to bring a proper government and unity necessary to rebuild the Chechen state, a guy has approached the subject objectively in substack https://open.substack.com/pub/robashlar/p/the-role-of-salafi-groups-in-tearing
- The issue with the current arrangement is that imo the Chechen people are rebuilding for a time when they will again achieve independence meaningfully once the Russian empire (which it will) will eventually lose grip through demography kinda like the Soviet Union did at the end. There is significant Chechen dissent silenced by the brutality if Kadyrov and he is also cultivating a backlash towards the Russians via him. For now the relations are ok but Chechens wont hesitate to betray the moment it becomes opportune
- I know this is part of Jewish belief and Abrahamic in general, but the first monotheistic religion is Zoroastroanism. The first unambigous and absolute monotheistic one is indeed Judaism.
- This is the first time I see the Palestinian Emirates idea but it seems like a cool compromise/function long as Israel gives the settlements in those areas to Palestinians (wont happen)
- I came across that in my Wikipedia binge, but I didn't think it was really relevant.
- Zoroastrianism isn't really monotheistic (admittedly nor are most branches of contemporary Judaism), but even if it was, and even if the Jews got the idea from there (which I don't believe), Judaism still gave it to the world, and is also a viable and growing religion today, which makes it cooler.
True on the latter point, but the appartment bombings are truly the event that cemented and started the 2nd Chechen war. The other ones happened after the start of the war or after the main part was finished (1998 to 2000).
Even if it's true though, the bulk of the Russian population perceived it as a kind of Oct 7th.