I'm speaking as an outsider with no skin in the game. It seems instead of everyone in the middle east becoming more like Israel, Israel is becoming more like the rest of the Middle East. A divided society with a growing population of low IQ religious nuts, ruled by a power hungry asshole that everyone hates. Perhaps man is either destined to die an Israeli or live long enough to become an Arab. From God's favourite child to His expired "made in China" condom.
You can see not a few of them on this thread. In a certain sense they are not especially religious, since, as a rule, they are barely shomer shabbos and often not even that, but they are definitely religious nuts.
Well it's the girls, who actually get a decent secular education. The boys who are not getting any sort of serious secular education are not taking the PISA, and would probably do very poorly if they tried. But the girls are enough to show that chareidim are high-IQ.
It’s fun reading you, that said you are incredibly wrong. I am sympathetic to the idea that maybe the Jewish state should have been on an island in the pacific with more easily defendable borders, but I just think functionally it would have been impossible to get people to get up and move there. There is still something fundamentally Jewish about the Israeli state.
Your article on the Holocaust was also incredibly silly. “Oh Americans are more safe today so nbd 6 million people were gassed.” This excludes the fact that far right and left are becoming incredibly antisemetic. Many wonder not if we will have to pick up and go to Israel but rather when.
I think nationalism is ultimately the idea that you should only form a government with people who you trust will not murder you if their minority gets power.
Until we can in real time change our genetic makeup the Jews need a state. There is a cringe idea that Zionism is messianic nature. I think that’s wrong. The state is there. Being a jew in real time sucks. However, it’s better to die on our own terms than getting walked into a gas chamber. Maybe the third Jewish Commonwealth will fall one day. However, we will all die one day and the fact that it exists matters. The goal is extending the length of this commonwealth as long as humanely possible or until send an update and the messiah comes and breaks the laws of nature.
Point is I am still staunchly pro-Israel. It is a matter of my children’s safety that Israel exists and anyone trying to undermine the security apparatus (government and army) is a traitor to the Jews. It is impossible to be jew and study Torah if you are in a gas chamber. While we have to send our children to die. At least most will live. The fact they must die is not a subject of our choices, but the actions of the orcs on our borders and they are paying a price and will continue paying a price. The challenge is extending the existence of the Jewish state.
As you contend demographics are destiny and I am I am therefore bullish on the Jewish state. The demographic weight is just so absurdly large given the ridiculous birth rate of Haredim. In 200 years, if the birth rate holds, there will be over a billion Jews in Israel. That is enough to swallow Palestine and quite frankly the entire levant. The challenge is making sure the state still exists in 200 years. Whether that’s a monarchy or Iranian style theocracy I don’t particularly care. It just matters that there is a Jewish army.
The levantines (its own distinct ethnic group encompassing Jews, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanian, and Palestinians) were brainwashed into thinking they’re Arab. We can brainwash them into thinking they’re Israelite. Almost all of Palestine and Jordan is ethnically Israelite anyway.
Will do in the future. Also why and how does Richard Hanania follow you lol. I randomly saw the article and was confused why he follows an antizionist. I then read all your articles at work instead of being productive lol
Who cares if they’re “israelite”? I’m assuming you’re religious. There are only Jews and goyim. The goyim don’t have to do much to stay in the Land. Just the 7 Noahide laws. If you can’t convince fellow Jews to take pride in their religion you expect some Shites and Sunnis who are willing to kill each other while both being Muslim, into thinking about how they’re actually “Israelites”? The beginning of your comment was good but then just spiraled.
It makes all the difference. You can’t convert away from being Jewish. If someone is forced to convert under duress we have an obligation to try to bring them back. Assuming you’re ashkenaz you 50-60% Israelite and 40% Italian. The Mizrahim are close to 70% Israelite 30% Mesopotamian. There is of course a functional difference between Jewish and Israelite, but they’re still both related. Of course I know I’m pushing an agenda. I don’t really care I’m down to convert the Palestinians piecemeal as I think solves issues. The first part is to change their designated ethnicity to Israelite Muslim/christian, which I sent even a lie. Then encouraging them to return to the religion of their ancestors. Also Judaism despite rabbinic wishes is paternal. Almost a majority of Jewish mtdna is goyish in origin at this point.
They didn’t “convert away” from Judaism, they simply intermixed with all the other peoples. Also they started following false religions and that has a punishment of its own
The implication that only Bibi would be between the far right and far left ideas is wrong; everyone from yair lapid to yair Golan on the left, to Bennet or gallant in the right, would have a broadly similar conflict management policy. Bit the others would probably do it in a less corrupt way while giving less concessions to people like Ben Gvir who just stir shit up to no gain.
This is true because Bibi has reshaped Israeli politics into his own psychologically abnormal image. Without him on the scene, people's innate desire to fix things would re-emerge.
Also, fwiw, while I think the Bennett government was mostly quite good relatively speaking, the uptick in West Bank violence that eventually necessitated troop movements away from the Gaza border started under them.
Brah, why did the Bennett government fail? Don’t you know what happened with that lady from the shrab party and them not being able to extend the nonsensical laws in Judea and Shomron?
I confused at what your position is exactly. If I'm reading you correctly: you think Zionism was a mistake, but that reversing Zionism would also be a mistake. Going easy on the Palestinians would be bad, but so would going harder on them. Thus, the best we can ever hope for is a return to the pre-October 7th status quo, which we continue forever?
But this is not my position. It is the truth of esoteric Bibi-ism, revealed to the elect, my subscribers. There are deeper and higher truths one can ascend to after fully internalising estoteric Bibi-ism, but these are for paid subscribers.
"Anshel Pfeffer describes his ‘his risk aversion and preference for covert operations or air strikes’
Thank God for that!
All of Zionist TwiX and most of Zionist Substack was in favor of invading Lebanon up to the Litani because Syrian Druze kids were killed in an accidental air strike by a dumb bomb.
How many Hamas big shots have been killed over the years? How many founders of it? Yet it seemed that it didn’t stop it from doing October 7. Today it was Druze kids, when Hezbollah gets the tech in place it will be Jewish kids. Let’s just kick the can down the road. The problem is that you mix two things up. The invasion up to the Litani can happen, but the proper way to do it will be prevented by the same people that launch it. Israel is controlled by people who care about instant polls instead of doing what’s right to the letter of the Law
You’re happy Bibi is risk averse and call out “Zionist TwiX” for being trigger happy to invade Lebanon. I don’t believe in being trigger happy, but doing what the Torah calls for when fighting our enemies. Bibi calls all the terrorists Nazis then has his head of Mossad and Shabak go to the same hotel as them and have little American messenger boys run in and out between the rooms delivering negotiation terms.
(By the way there was a typo and I tried to edit the comment but Substack doesn’t let. So I had to delete and post again. Lame!)
Perhaps the original Zionists' initial plan was based on mistaken demographic assumptions, but the Zionist leadership accepted partition in principle in 1937, as discussed in Yitzchak Gal Nur's article:
Do you believe that partition was and will forever remain impossible? I suspect it will be, at least as long as the Iranian regime is around. Elliott Abrams sets out the problems with partition in a contemporary context here - do you agree?:
1) Even with partition, a Jewish state was impossible without significant ethnic cleansing, as the Peel report stated, the results of which dog us to this day.
2) It's not just the Iranian regime, it's anyone willing to back the Palestinian cause, and it seems most likely there will always be someone.
3) I think partition with neighbouring Arab states, as was the case 1948-67, is possible, but it's an unstable equilibrium that requires the will of all actors to keep it going, and that wasn't present.
The UNSCOP partition plan in 1947 didn't involve any ethnic cleansing - had the Arabs accepted it as the Jews did, I don't see how the Jews could have got away with ethnic cleansing and the Jewish state would have been born without it.
I think even if the Arabs had accepted it some kind of transfer would have been inevitable, but it would have been smaller and more orderly and wouldn't still be causing us headache today. However, at no stage did the Arabs indicate they would ever accept partition so it's kind of moot.
Fair enough. The only Palestinian leader who can credibly be argued to have accepted partition (and even that is doubtful) is Abass.
What do you make of the claim made by Oslo architect Ron Pundak, among others, that Israeli mistakes / settlement construction etc contributed to Oslo's failure?
I think he is expecting conduct from the Israeli negotiating side that is impossible to achieve in practice, and even then I don't think it would have made a difference.
If I wanted to make fun of sheitels I could, but I actually what I said was that the Charedi decision to permit sheitels is evidence of their generally pragmatic approach because it puts appeasing female interests (specifically vanity) ahead of other principles usually believed to be important to the Charedi community, such as adherence to the stricter opinion, upholding of tradition, or not bringing the Torah into disrepute.
I apologize for the wording of my comment though you haven't addressed my main point.
I was originally thinking of just asking if you extended the heter of "pragmatic this far, but when I saw this comment, I just hooked on to it and wrote shorthand.
The truth is that even if you were an atheist, I still agree with much of what you wrote and appreciate it. For a while I have been wishing that someone would write along these lines. Over 6 months ago I sent a sketch of articles along these lines to Happy from IM, but I never managed to complete them.
What bothers me is that you seem to be פוסח על שתי הסעיפים, appealing to frummies with זצ"ל and שליט"א etc. and appealing to others in ways that that a Jewish boy shouldn't. Swear words I don't mind much but other things I do, and I don't believe they are that necessary to attract people. If you feel they are necessary at least don't present yourself as a frum Jew and a "lamdan". ילך למקום שאין מכירין אותו וילבש שחורים ויתעטף שחורים
No need to apologise. I thought about it, and I will now desist from swearing in articles. My wife is happier with me too, so a win all round. If you have other criticisms, then please feel free to share them in the comments or by DM.
Now that you brought up the previous discussion I will respond with my opinion.
First, you didn't define what you mean by pragmatism. If what you are saying is that there is an idea, even among Charedim, of a שעת הדחק, and female vanity may be included in this, I can probably agree. But is that even a chidush? (I guess for an outsider it is.)
Now for your 3 points which you feel should come into play here.
1. Adherence to the stricter opinion.
I believe that traditionally this was generally reserved for males only.
2. Upholding of tradition.
Among contemporary Litvaks "upholding of tradition" is mostly a usurpation of the once normal Litvishe practice of rabbanim being free to be quite individualistic and novel in psak. Today rabbanim have very little power to change established practices. So, this actually explains shaitels. Once this practice became normalized today's rabbanim have little power to change it, even if they may personally feel that circumstances have changed.
That said, I do agree with the general point that many slogans usually understood to represent "Charedi hashkafa" are actually just superficial media lines, and the real reasons are much more pragmatic. I already mentioned to you a few weeks ago that I believe the main strategy of the Charedi community, as envisioned by the Chazon Ish (and followed by Rav Shach and others) was to prioritize demographic growth of the community. By the time Israel reaches its 100th birthday the Charedim should reach their goal of a state in which most Jews are religious. They will then turn their attention to include other activities, not necessarily as a conscious decision but simply as a natural reaction to becoming the majority in Israel (and eventually in the Levant). At that point they will be able to integrate in the economy and the army on their terms and they will excel as they do everywhere else. Whoever wants to know what the future of Israel will look like only has to read this article about El Al .
And I agree that some aspects of feminism help them achieve this goal. But I don’t think this is their chidush. I think they are adopting the Torah approach to feminism. (Ever read אשת חיל?)
In general, I think it isn't mainly that Charedim adapted to be pro-fertility, but rather that the Torah teaches to be pro-fertility. After all, this is the first מצוה in the Torah, and the Torah places פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ prior to וכבשוה. And I think a major part of this is the Torah's balancing of feminism with masculinism, as I explained extensively at the aforementioned blog.
1) You are obligated to make sure your wife dresses appropriately and so this is a kula for men as well.
2) There are loads of things charedi poskim and community leaders try to crack down on progressively over time even though a lenient custom became prevalent in the mid 20th century, sheitels is a conspicuous exception.
3) The Christian lady was right, but whaddayagonnado?
I agree that Charedism is a legitimate expression of the Jewish tradition as it has evolved over the past 2,000 years and should not be seen as a perversion just because it has adapted in many ways to modern circumstances. However, this is a delicate point to make because claiming that they haven't adapted is so important to their self-conception.
Are you referring to this quote in my comment? "I don't think we disagree - we just have very different experiences. I mean, now I have no community that tells me how to do it."
>2) There are loads of things charedi poskim and community leaders try to crack down on progressively over time even though a lenient custom became prevalent in the mid 20th century, sheitels is a conspicuous exception.
That is an interesting discussion perhaps but that was your point in #1 not #2.
3. I don't agree. Perhaps she was right about sheitels but not about the general approach to modesty. As we discussed there, Christian modesty is about suppressing female vanity. I don't think צניעות is about that at all.
>This is a delicate point to make because claiming that they haven't adapted is so important to their self-conception.
Not so sure about that. It is true that that would not agree to the way you phrased it, but anyone that knows anything understands that "charedism" is an adaptation.
אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן: קלתה, אין בה משום פרוע ראש. הוי בה רבי זירא: היכא? אילימא בשוק — דת יהודית היא! ואלא בחצר — אם כן לא הנחת בת לאברהם אבינו שיושבת תחת בעלה! אמר אביי ואיתימא רב כהנא: מחצר לחצר ודרך מבוי
We see from this two things. First of all, that it is normal for women to not cover their hair in their private hatzer (and a fortiori the house) and, secondly, that it is taken as a given that a woman who does not cover her hair will be divorced.
3) Don't agree. See Yishaya 3:16 till the end of the perek.
So I guess I should have addressed this in the post, but I believe that if the government hadn't been in a state of disarray, then it would have been a 50-100 casualty event and a show of Israeli military superiority. From one perspective, one can say that the fact that the government was in disarray is an indictment of Bibi, and this is true, but from another perspective, one can say that it means that his opponents should simply have given up and accepted him as leader for life in return for no judicial reform etc.
I mean, what happened on 7th of October was first and foremost a failure of either Israel's intelligence itself or people who are supposed to react to the intelligence's reports. The exact number of casualties and hostages is immaterial: this was a massive breach of the border, which itself dismantles the idea of superiority (which had always been largely held on intelligence's superiority).
Also, the government being in disarray is a result of _continuous_ politics by Netanyahu (his politics on Gaza and Palestinian Autonomy certainly included), not just "judicial reform" and other specific concerns of late. The number of "ex-Likud people who are only ex-Likud because of him" is certainly relevant: he was an inherently destabilizing power at the helm.
I agree with that. It's just compared to what? Someone who wasn't constantly alienating everyone around him would have got us into more scrapes. This isn't even hypothetical. We have had other PMs, they just flamed out really quickly.
What do you mean "flamed out"? I mean, I'm not that interested in Israel despite currently living in it, but if we're going hypotheticals, I'd prefer Yitzhak Rabin surviving the assassination and upholding Oslo in face of suicide bombings, protests, and such.
Ehud Olmert tried peace negotiations got humiliated, same with Tzipi Livni, Barak too. Olmert also got us into two losing wars, first against Lebanon, and then Gaza.
Fact is if Rabin hadn't been shot, he would have lost the next election really badly. The only reason Labour were even competitive in that election was because of backlash to the shooting. You can't just ride out suicide bombings two or three times a week. Oslo was a crummy idea for obvious reasons that were all pointed out in advance.
I have often argued that going to this strip of land was a mistake in the first place. But this does not entail that feeding status quo was the best available solution.
In a parliamentarian system, you get better (and above all more stable) governance at the price of having a broker, not a leader as the chief executive.
Arab resistance forced Zionism to become real. Zionism was forced to impose itself, and it did. There is no solution, so what? Solution to what, anyways? What is the problem? Real life? Israel is not a solution to the problems of Jews, but it was the end of Jewish nationalism, and a Jewish state is what Israel is. Where could Israel be besides the only place where it ever existed, before it was raised to the ground by Hadrian? That's right, smack dab on top of "Palestine." Mission accomplished.
That's a legit take, but no Zionist thinker I am aware of thought that a nation state was an end in itself. Rather, they saw it as a solution to the problems of European Jewry. The reality is that it solved some of those problems, didn't solve others and created some new ones on top.
As an American Jew with very little knowledge of the inner workings of Israeli politics, I found this piece fascinating.
I have 3 questions, only one of which comes with an opinion attached:
1) Isn’t it in fact the case that “Manage the conflict” is the right / best possible answer for the next couple of decades (and likely another couple decades after that)? And wasn’t it also the best possible answer even 10 years ago?
2) If your answer to 1) is not yes, I’d be very interested in hearing *your* answer for what the right thing to do is - since you clearly disagree (as do I) with the left and with the Israeli (far) right.
3) Given the nature of Israel’s democracy with proportional party voting, doesn’t anyone who seeks to lead Israel - certainly with any “solution” other than a very left one - have to do something more or less like what Bibi does (in your words “lying to everyone”)?
1) I think so based on expected outcomes, but you have to manage it well. Obviously, Oct 7th was not managing it well. I have more elaborate plans, but they require an ideological re-set (hence non-Zionism).
3) It certainly incentivises it, but Bibi appears to positively enjoy it. He lies even when there appears no reason at all. This is another reason why we must regard his existence as something providential.
I once read a book by an Israeli leftist who makes this exact point about Netanyahu, only obvious using it to slam him over the head. I immediately saw that Netanyahu is right in this. Pragmatism.
I'm speaking as an outsider with no skin in the game. It seems instead of everyone in the middle east becoming more like Israel, Israel is becoming more like the rest of the Middle East. A divided society with a growing population of low IQ religious nuts, ruled by a power hungry asshole that everyone hates. Perhaps man is either destined to die an Israeli or live long enough to become an Arab. From God's favourite child to His expired "made in China" condom.
"Perhaps man is either destined to die an Israeli or live long enough to become an Arab. "
Absolute banger line. I'm stealing it.
Which “Israeli”? The one with the pride parades and the disgusting soulless hi tech buildings that came from the LEGO set?
How would you describe King David having foreskins cut off from the dead Philistines? Sounds pretty “Arab” to me.
RE low IQ: No. Haredim have higher pisa scores than secular and national religious Israelis despite their terrible secular education.
I don't think he meant Charedim.
What religious nuts then with growing population? The non-Haredi religious population isn’t really growing as a % due to high attrition.
You can see not a few of them on this thread. In a certain sense they are not especially religious, since, as a rule, they are barely shomer shabbos and often not even that, but they are definitely religious nuts.
Well it's the girls, who actually get a decent secular education. The boys who are not getting any sort of serious secular education are not taking the PISA, and would probably do very poorly if they tried. But the girls are enough to show that chareidim are high-IQ.
Their secular education is still not good compared to the secular education that secular girls get, right? And yet the Pisa is higher.
It's not below average. They may study fewer subjects, but at least they study them. A lot of Israeli schools are chaotic third world hellholes.
I came here for the politics, I stayed thanks to the superb writting.
PS: Curious tendency to overuse french terms. Reminds me of a particular strain of Gen-Xers.
This is one of the dumbest things I've read this morning. I can't get those 90 seconds back.
That's the funniest thing I've read in a while. Good job.
It’s fun reading you, that said you are incredibly wrong. I am sympathetic to the idea that maybe the Jewish state should have been on an island in the pacific with more easily defendable borders, but I just think functionally it would have been impossible to get people to get up and move there. There is still something fundamentally Jewish about the Israeli state.
Your article on the Holocaust was also incredibly silly. “Oh Americans are more safe today so nbd 6 million people were gassed.” This excludes the fact that far right and left are becoming incredibly antisemetic. Many wonder not if we will have to pick up and go to Israel but rather when.
I think nationalism is ultimately the idea that you should only form a government with people who you trust will not murder you if their minority gets power.
Until we can in real time change our genetic makeup the Jews need a state. There is a cringe idea that Zionism is messianic nature. I think that’s wrong. The state is there. Being a jew in real time sucks. However, it’s better to die on our own terms than getting walked into a gas chamber. Maybe the third Jewish Commonwealth will fall one day. However, we will all die one day and the fact that it exists matters. The goal is extending the length of this commonwealth as long as humanely possible or until send an update and the messiah comes and breaks the laws of nature.
Point is I am still staunchly pro-Israel. It is a matter of my children’s safety that Israel exists and anyone trying to undermine the security apparatus (government and army) is a traitor to the Jews. It is impossible to be jew and study Torah if you are in a gas chamber. While we have to send our children to die. At least most will live. The fact they must die is not a subject of our choices, but the actions of the orcs on our borders and they are paying a price and will continue paying a price. The challenge is extending the existence of the Jewish state.
As you contend demographics are destiny and I am I am therefore bullish on the Jewish state. The demographic weight is just so absurdly large given the ridiculous birth rate of Haredim. In 200 years, if the birth rate holds, there will be over a billion Jews in Israel. That is enough to swallow Palestine and quite frankly the entire levant. The challenge is making sure the state still exists in 200 years. Whether that’s a monarchy or Iranian style theocracy I don’t particularly care. It just matters that there is a Jewish army.
The levantines (its own distinct ethnic group encompassing Jews, Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanian, and Palestinians) were brainwashed into thinking they’re Arab. We can brainwash them into thinking they’re Israelite. Almost all of Palestine and Jordan is ethnically Israelite anyway.
You should comment on each article separately. More productive and also helps me with the algorithm. I agree somewhat with your last point though.
Will do in the future. Also why and how does Richard Hanania follow you lol. I randomly saw the article and was confused why he follows an antizionist. I then read all your articles at work instead of being productive lol
I'm not an anti-Zionist. I'm good at self-promotion on Substack and have many prestigious follows, with more to come.
Who cares if they’re “israelite”? I’m assuming you’re religious. There are only Jews and goyim. The goyim don’t have to do much to stay in the Land. Just the 7 Noahide laws. If you can’t convince fellow Jews to take pride in their religion you expect some Shites and Sunnis who are willing to kill each other while both being Muslim, into thinking about how they’re actually “Israelites”? The beginning of your comment was good but then just spiraled.
It makes all the difference. You can’t convert away from being Jewish. If someone is forced to convert under duress we have an obligation to try to bring them back. Assuming you’re ashkenaz you 50-60% Israelite and 40% Italian. The Mizrahim are close to 70% Israelite 30% Mesopotamian. There is of course a functional difference between Jewish and Israelite, but they’re still both related. Of course I know I’m pushing an agenda. I don’t really care I’m down to convert the Palestinians piecemeal as I think solves issues. The first part is to change their designated ethnicity to Israelite Muslim/christian, which I sent even a lie. Then encouraging them to return to the religion of their ancestors. Also Judaism despite rabbinic wishes is paternal. Almost a majority of Jewish mtdna is goyish in origin at this point.
They didn’t “convert away” from Judaism, they simply intermixed with all the other peoples. Also they started following false religions and that has a punishment of its own
The implication that only Bibi would be between the far right and far left ideas is wrong; everyone from yair lapid to yair Golan on the left, to Bennet or gallant in the right, would have a broadly similar conflict management policy. Bit the others would probably do it in a less corrupt way while giving less concessions to people like Ben Gvir who just stir shit up to no gain.
This is true because Bibi has reshaped Israeli politics into his own psychologically abnormal image. Without him on the scene, people's innate desire to fix things would re-emerge.
Also, fwiw, while I think the Bennett government was mostly quite good relatively speaking, the uptick in West Bank violence that eventually necessitated troop movements away from the Gaza border started under them.
Brah, why did the Bennett government fail? Don’t you know what happened with that lady from the shrab party and them not being able to extend the nonsensical laws in Judea and Shomron?
I confused at what your position is exactly. If I'm reading you correctly: you think Zionism was a mistake, but that reversing Zionism would also be a mistake. Going easy on the Palestinians would be bad, but so would going harder on them. Thus, the best we can ever hope for is a return to the pre-October 7th status quo, which we continue forever?
Nailed it.
But this is not my position. It is the truth of esoteric Bibi-ism, revealed to the elect, my subscribers. There are deeper and higher truths one can ascend to after fully internalising estoteric Bibi-ism, but these are for paid subscribers.
God... How did you master this?
"Anshel Pfeffer describes his ‘his risk aversion and preference for covert operations or air strikes’
Thank God for that!
All of Zionist TwiX and most of Zionist Substack was in favor of invading Lebanon up to the Litani because Syrian Druze kids were killed in an accidental air strike by a dumb bomb.
Bibi took the opportunity to whack some bigshots.
He's making me into an admirer.
How many Hamas big shots have been killed over the years? How many founders of it? Yet it seemed that it didn’t stop it from doing October 7. Today it was Druze kids, when Hezbollah gets the tech in place it will be Jewish kids. Let’s just kick the can down the road. The problem is that you mix two things up. The invasion up to the Litani can happen, but the proper way to do it will be prevented by the same people that launch it. Israel is controlled by people who care about instant polls instead of doing what’s right to the letter of the Law
Nothing I said should be taken as disagreeing with you.
You’re happy Bibi is risk averse and call out “Zionist TwiX” for being trigger happy to invade Lebanon. I don’t believe in being trigger happy, but doing what the Torah calls for when fighting our enemies. Bibi calls all the terrorists Nazis then has his head of Mossad and Shabak go to the same hotel as them and have little American messenger boys run in and out between the rooms delivering negotiation terms.
(By the way there was a typo and I tried to edit the comment but Substack doesn’t let. So I had to delete and post again. Lame!)
Meir, you are being a rude PITA, and I'm not talking about the bread.
No offense meant, just making the argument that sometimes the “radicals” are correct in the long run. Our friend the author disagrees
Perhaps the original Zionists' initial plan was based on mistaken demographic assumptions, but the Zionist leadership accepted partition in principle in 1937, as discussed in Yitzchak Gal Nur's article:
https://in.bgu.ac.il/bgi/iyunim/1/galnur.pdf
Do you believe that partition was and will forever remain impossible? I suspect it will be, at least as long as the Iranian regime is around. Elliott Abrams sets out the problems with partition in a contemporary context here - do you agree?:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/two-state-delusion
1) Even with partition, a Jewish state was impossible without significant ethnic cleansing, as the Peel report stated, the results of which dog us to this day.
2) It's not just the Iranian regime, it's anyone willing to back the Palestinian cause, and it seems most likely there will always be someone.
3) I think partition with neighbouring Arab states, as was the case 1948-67, is possible, but it's an unstable equilibrium that requires the will of all actors to keep it going, and that wasn't present.
The UNSCOP partition plan in 1947 didn't involve any ethnic cleansing - had the Arabs accepted it as the Jews did, I don't see how the Jews could have got away with ethnic cleansing and the Jewish state would have been born without it.
I think even if the Arabs had accepted it some kind of transfer would have been inevitable, but it would have been smaller and more orderly and wouldn't still be causing us headache today. However, at no stage did the Arabs indicate they would ever accept partition so it's kind of moot.
Fair enough. The only Palestinian leader who can credibly be argued to have accepted partition (and even that is doubtful) is Abass.
What do you make of the claim made by Oslo architect Ron Pundak, among others, that Israeli mistakes / settlement construction etc contributed to Oslo's failure?
https://davis.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/davisinst/files/Ron_Pundak.pdf
I think he is expecting conduct from the Israeli negotiating side that is impossible to achieve in practice, and even then I don't think it would have made a difference.
Because the terrorism would have come anyway?
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say you are an atheist. You certainly sound like one.
Ouch. I told you not to subscribe. Good Shabbos, keep safe.
I’m a big boy. I can handle it.
How do you know better?
Certainly sounds atheist to make fun of sheitels and eiruvin and at the same time post pictures of פרוצות and discuss their appearance.
If I wanted to make fun of sheitels I could, but I actually what I said was that the Charedi decision to permit sheitels is evidence of their generally pragmatic approach because it puts appeasing female interests (specifically vanity) ahead of other principles usually believed to be important to the Charedi community, such as adherence to the stricter opinion, upholding of tradition, or not bringing the Torah into disrepute.
I apologize for the wording of my comment though you haven't addressed my main point.
I was originally thinking of just asking if you extended the heter of "pragmatic this far, but when I saw this comment, I just hooked on to it and wrote shorthand.
The truth is that even if you were an atheist, I still agree with much of what you wrote and appreciate it. For a while I have been wishing that someone would write along these lines. Over 6 months ago I sent a sketch of articles along these lines to Happy from IM, but I never managed to complete them.
What bothers me is that you seem to be פוסח על שתי הסעיפים, appealing to frummies with זצ"ל and שליט"א etc. and appealing to others in ways that that a Jewish boy shouldn't. Swear words I don't mind much but other things I do, and I don't believe they are that necessary to attract people. If you feel they are necessary at least don't present yourself as a frum Jew and a "lamdan". ילך למקום שאין מכירין אותו וילבש שחורים ויתעטף שחורים
No need to apologise. I thought about it, and I will now desist from swearing in articles. My wife is happier with me too, so a win all round. If you have other criticisms, then please feel free to share them in the comments or by DM.
Now that you brought up the previous discussion I will respond with my opinion.
First, you didn't define what you mean by pragmatism. If what you are saying is that there is an idea, even among Charedim, of a שעת הדחק, and female vanity may be included in this, I can probably agree. But is that even a chidush? (I guess for an outsider it is.)
Now for your 3 points which you feel should come into play here.
1. Adherence to the stricter opinion.
I believe that traditionally this was generally reserved for males only.
2. Upholding of tradition.
Among contemporary Litvaks "upholding of tradition" is mostly a usurpation of the once normal Litvishe practice of rabbanim being free to be quite individualistic and novel in psak. Today rabbanim have very little power to change established practices. So, this actually explains shaitels. Once this practice became normalized today's rabbanim have little power to change it, even if they may personally feel that circumstances have changed.
3. Not bringing the Torah into disrepute.
I think the nations of the world don't understand our concept of tznius in the first place. I recently had a conversation with an atheist woman from a "vaguely Christian" tradition who couldn't understand how Charedi women wear so much makeup etc., as it seems to be the antithesis of modesty. It took a while, but eventually she somewhat understood and wrote "I don't think we disagree - we just have very different experiences. I mean, now I have no community that tells me how to do it." This is a link to the last part of the conversation https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/israels-forgotten-victim-card/comment/64069106?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNDg5MjAxNjIsInBvc3RfaWQiOjE0NDgyNzYzOCwiaWF0IjoxNzIyNzIxODA4LCJleHAiOjE3MjI5ODEwMDgsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04MzE2ODMiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LWNvbW1lbnRzIn0.FFRFtRW-l19N3uJXke0jEZjlupv4JQQYRdsazTaKG8s#comment-64291634?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNDg5MjAxNjIsInBvc3RfaWQiOjE0NDgyNzYzOCwiaWF0IjoxNzIyNzIxODA4LCJleHAiOjE3MjI5ODEwMDgsImlzcyI6InB1Yi04MzE2ODMiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LWNvbW1lbnRzIn0.FFRFtRW-l19N3uJXke0jEZjlupv4JQQYRdsazTaKG8s. (You may be interested in the broader conversation there, especially the original post as you can tell from the title. Additionally, this guy wrote a post a while ago that was along the lines of your previous post https://woodfromeden.substack.com/p/the-curious-case-of-israeli-fertility. Perhaps you can provide him with some insight and get him to subscribe.)
That said, I do agree with the general point that many slogans usually understood to represent "Charedi hashkafa" are actually just superficial media lines, and the real reasons are much more pragmatic. I already mentioned to you a few weeks ago that I believe the main strategy of the Charedi community, as envisioned by the Chazon Ish (and followed by Rav Shach and others) was to prioritize demographic growth of the community. By the time Israel reaches its 100th birthday the Charedim should reach their goal of a state in which most Jews are religious. They will then turn their attention to include other activities, not necessarily as a conscious decision but simply as a natural reaction to becoming the majority in Israel (and eventually in the Levant). At that point they will be able to integrate in the economy and the army on their terms and they will excel as they do everywhere else. Whoever wants to know what the future of Israel will look like only has to read this article about El Al .
And I agree that some aspects of feminism help them achieve this goal. But I don’t think this is their chidush. I think they are adopting the Torah approach to feminism. (Ever read אשת חיל?)
In general, I think it isn't mainly that Charedim adapted to be pro-fertility, but rather that the Torah teaches to be pro-fertility. After all, this is the first מצוה in the Torah, and the Torah places פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ prior to וכבשוה. And I think a major part of this is the Torah's balancing of feminism with masculinism, as I explained extensively at the aforementioned blog.
1) You are obligated to make sure your wife dresses appropriately and so this is a kula for men as well.
2) There are loads of things charedi poskim and community leaders try to crack down on progressively over time even though a lenient custom became prevalent in the mid 20th century, sheitels is a conspicuous exception.
3) The Christian lady was right, but whaddayagonnado?
I agree that Charedism is a legitimate expression of the Jewish tradition as it has evolved over the past 2,000 years and should not be seen as a perversion just because it has adapted in many ways to modern circumstances. However, this is a delicate point to make because claiming that they haven't adapted is so important to their self-conception.
>The Christian lady was right
Are you referring to this quote in my comment? "I don't think we disagree - we just have very different experiences. I mean, now I have no community that tells me how to do it."
>2) There are loads of things charedi poskim and community leaders try to crack down on progressively over time even though a lenient custom became prevalent in the mid 20th century, sheitels is a conspicuous exception.
That is an interesting discussion perhaps but that was your point in #1 not #2.
1. What is this obligation?
3. I don't agree. Perhaps she was right about sheitels but not about the general approach to modesty. As we discussed there, Christian modesty is about suppressing female vanity. I don't think צניעות is about that at all.
>This is a delicate point to make because claiming that they haven't adapted is so important to their self-conception.
Not so sure about that. It is true that that would not agree to the way you phrased it, but anyone that knows anything understands that "charedism" is an adaptation.
1) The gemara says:
אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן: קלתה, אין בה משום פרוע ראש. הוי בה רבי זירא: היכא? אילימא בשוק — דת יהודית היא! ואלא בחצר — אם כן לא הנחת בת לאברהם אבינו שיושבת תחת בעלה! אמר אביי ואיתימא רב כהנא: מחצר לחצר ודרך מבוי
We see from this two things. First of all, that it is normal for women to not cover their hair in their private hatzer (and a fortiori the house) and, secondly, that it is taken as a given that a woman who does not cover her hair will be divorced.
3) Don't agree. See Yishaya 3:16 till the end of the perek.
Secret intelligence capabilities.
So, holding on to status quo until it explodes in your face is supposed to be a good strategy now? Noted...
So I guess I should have addressed this in the post, but I believe that if the government hadn't been in a state of disarray, then it would have been a 50-100 casualty event and a show of Israeli military superiority. From one perspective, one can say that the fact that the government was in disarray is an indictment of Bibi, and this is true, but from another perspective, one can say that it means that his opponents should simply have given up and accepted him as leader for life in return for no judicial reform etc.
I mean, what happened on 7th of October was first and foremost a failure of either Israel's intelligence itself or people who are supposed to react to the intelligence's reports. The exact number of casualties and hostages is immaterial: this was a massive breach of the border, which itself dismantles the idea of superiority (which had always been largely held on intelligence's superiority).
Also, the government being in disarray is a result of _continuous_ politics by Netanyahu (his politics on Gaza and Palestinian Autonomy certainly included), not just "judicial reform" and other specific concerns of late. The number of "ex-Likud people who are only ex-Likud because of him" is certainly relevant: he was an inherently destabilizing power at the helm.
I agree with that. It's just compared to what? Someone who wasn't constantly alienating everyone around him would have got us into more scrapes. This isn't even hypothetical. We have had other PMs, they just flamed out really quickly.
What do you mean "flamed out"? I mean, I'm not that interested in Israel despite currently living in it, but if we're going hypotheticals, I'd prefer Yitzhak Rabin surviving the assassination and upholding Oslo in face of suicide bombings, protests, and such.
Ehud Olmert tried peace negotiations got humiliated, same with Tzipi Livni, Barak too. Olmert also got us into two losing wars, first against Lebanon, and then Gaza.
Fact is if Rabin hadn't been shot, he would have lost the next election really badly. The only reason Labour were even competitive in that election was because of backlash to the shooting. You can't just ride out suicide bombings two or three times a week. Oslo was a crummy idea for obvious reasons that were all pointed out in advance.
> You can't just ride out suicide bombings two or three times a week.
Yes, you can. If you're smart, you can even turn them to your favour.
It's not Bibi's fault that Pax Americana was really Suicide Pact Americana.
Israel, or the part of the world that is now called Israel, has always been subject to the whims of empires.
I have often argued that going to this strip of land was a mistake in the first place. But this does not entail that feeding status quo was the best available solution.
What strip of land - Gaza, or Israel? honest question.
Near East :) The whole eastern coast of Mediterranean has been a mess since Phoenicians got owned.
In a parliamentarian system, you get better (and above all more stable) governance at the price of having a broker, not a leader as the chief executive.
Not sure if anyone else will agree, but this was hilarious. In a good way
Arab resistance forced Zionism to become real. Zionism was forced to impose itself, and it did. There is no solution, so what? Solution to what, anyways? What is the problem? Real life? Israel is not a solution to the problems of Jews, but it was the end of Jewish nationalism, and a Jewish state is what Israel is. Where could Israel be besides the only place where it ever existed, before it was raised to the ground by Hadrian? That's right, smack dab on top of "Palestine." Mission accomplished.
That's a legit take, but no Zionist thinker I am aware of thought that a nation state was an end in itself. Rather, they saw it as a solution to the problems of European Jewry. The reality is that it solved some of those problems, didn't solve others and created some new ones on top.
As an American Jew with very little knowledge of the inner workings of Israeli politics, I found this piece fascinating.
I have 3 questions, only one of which comes with an opinion attached:
1) Isn’t it in fact the case that “Manage the conflict” is the right / best possible answer for the next couple of decades (and likely another couple decades after that)? And wasn’t it also the best possible answer even 10 years ago?
2) If your answer to 1) is not yes, I’d be very interested in hearing *your* answer for what the right thing to do is - since you clearly disagree (as do I) with the left and with the Israeli (far) right.
3) Given the nature of Israel’s democracy with proportional party voting, doesn’t anyone who seeks to lead Israel - certainly with any “solution” other than a very left one - have to do something more or less like what Bibi does (in your words “lying to everyone”)?
1) I think so based on expected outcomes, but you have to manage it well. Obviously, Oct 7th was not managing it well. I have more elaborate plans, but they require an ideological re-set (hence non-Zionism).
3) It certainly incentivises it, but Bibi appears to positively enjoy it. He lies even when there appears no reason at all. This is another reason why we must regard his existence as something providential.
I once read a book by an Israeli leftist who makes this exact point about Netanyahu, only obvious using it to slam him over the head. I immediately saw that Netanyahu is right in this. Pragmatism.