It’s natural and inevitable that a minority will want to tear down the majority. So Jews when a minority want anti-majoritarianism, and when a majority want majoritarianism. They are not unique in this. The situation in Israel has its unique booster fuel, but one could find examples elsewhere in the world.
I don’t see any way out of this dilemma. Israel’s best interest would be to ignore groaning from western Jews, and western Jews best interest would be to stop being activists.
Israeli Arabs (inside pre-67 borders) have not "joined the other Palestinians in killing Jews". this is very imprecise.
1. there was an episode of violence in the most of a war in Gaza. a wave that fast ended, and nobody is even taking of it repeating. you never know, but there are no signs for a repeat.
2. all the recent violence are either from the West Bank, or from the occupied Palestinian parts of Jerusalem.
the recent violence wave starting about march 22 is wholly coming from occupied territories.
1. among many leftist there is always a prevailing view that the onus should be on one party only (on Israel, on European Western countries as far as immigration is concerned etc...). This tends to create increased polarization
2. I have been living in the Middle East for 16 years and many progresses have been made towards a more peaceful and tolerant environment. And i think they are very fast relative to history's pace. so there are sprouts of optimism
Left unargued for, in Gordis's otherwise thoughtful piece, is the premise that the collective survival of a tribe (any tribe, be it Jews or Palestinians or Kurds or anyone else) is in and of itself a morally important thing worth fighting for, and a fortiori, a thing worth violating the individual human rights of those not of that tribe in order to preserve.
I recognize that this premise is taken as axiomatic by the vast majority of humans of whatever tribe, that most folks will fight for "their kind" without a second thought. But to those of us who are, by nature or culture or both, rootless cosmopolitans, it is not a very sympathetic premise.
This is a very misleading view of Israeli domestic politics.
Generally speaking, the people in Israel, the political parties, and the country's military leaders (ie pretty much every senior person in any Israeli military/intelligence position) most focused on defense matters do not make up/support the right wing bloc.
The dividing issue in Israeli politics is not security, like at all...
The dividing issue in Israeli politics is about the role Judaism plays in the state and questions of pluralism and the rule of law.
Jews who want to visit the Temple mount are not being provocative. They just want to visit the Temple mount. If it didn't annoy the Arabs, far more people would visit. That's the opposite of a provocation which means you do it because it annoys somebody. It's true that the Arabs view this as a provocation but it's not. The Temple Mount is an ancient Jewish holy site and people want to visit it because people like to visit ancient holy sites of their religion. Jews who visit the Temple mount for religious reasons don't desecrate the mosque and in fact they don't get near the mosque because they aren't allowed to according to Jewish law.
I especially like how Kling has explained the draw of the right. That makes sense, at least for voters near the "middle" politically. I also like his description of the left but I'm a bit less certain it is correct.
Or maybe what I wrote is a bit backwards and there isn't a draw to the right as much as a repulsion from the left. I'm not sure any of the specifics are the same in US politics but it seems something similar us happening in the US and I'd definitely say what has been happening in the US is repulsion away from the left rather than a draw towards ethnocracy or even the right more generally. How else to explain increasing black and Hispanic Republican votes?
Gordis: Maybe there are others who desire neither an “humble” Israel or one desperate for international support but yes nice. These may be the same people who want those same things including survival in a dangerous world for their own countries. And what does socialism” got to do with it?)
And why should US policy move toward as “one state solution?” unless Israeli politicians cannot find a way not to rule over a lot of Palestinians who do not wish to be ruled over. Israel is just one more “flawed country surviving in a very troubled [world]”
[Israeli Arabs killing Jews because of BLM? Surely you don’t believe that.]
What About Israel?
It’s natural and inevitable that a minority will want to tear down the majority. So Jews when a minority want anti-majoritarianism, and when a majority want majoritarianism. They are not unique in this. The situation in Israel has its unique booster fuel, but one could find examples elsewhere in the world.
I don’t see any way out of this dilemma. Israel’s best interest would be to ignore groaning from western Jews, and western Jews best interest would be to stop being activists.
Israeli Arabs (inside pre-67 borders) have not "joined the other Palestinians in killing Jews". this is very imprecise.
1. there was an episode of violence in the most of a war in Gaza. a wave that fast ended, and nobody is even taking of it repeating. you never know, but there are no signs for a repeat.
2. all the recent violence are either from the West Bank, or from the occupied Palestinian parts of Jerusalem.
the recent violence wave starting about march 22 is wholly coming from occupied territories.
1. among many leftist there is always a prevailing view that the onus should be on one party only (on Israel, on European Western countries as far as immigration is concerned etc...). This tends to create increased polarization
2. I have been living in the Middle East for 16 years and many progresses have been made towards a more peaceful and tolerant environment. And i think they are very fast relative to history's pace. so there are sprouts of optimism
Left unargued for, in Gordis's otherwise thoughtful piece, is the premise that the collective survival of a tribe (any tribe, be it Jews or Palestinians or Kurds or anyone else) is in and of itself a morally important thing worth fighting for, and a fortiori, a thing worth violating the individual human rights of those not of that tribe in order to preserve.
I recognize that this premise is taken as axiomatic by the vast majority of humans of whatever tribe, that most folks will fight for "their kind" without a second thought. But to those of us who are, by nature or culture or both, rootless cosmopolitans, it is not a very sympathetic premise.
This is a very misleading view of Israeli domestic politics.
Generally speaking, the people in Israel, the political parties, and the country's military leaders (ie pretty much every senior person in any Israeli military/intelligence position) most focused on defense matters do not make up/support the right wing bloc.
The dividing issue in Israeli politics is not security, like at all...
The dividing issue in Israeli politics is about the role Judaism plays in the state and questions of pluralism and the rule of law.
Jews who want to visit the Temple mount are not being provocative. They just want to visit the Temple mount. If it didn't annoy the Arabs, far more people would visit. That's the opposite of a provocation which means you do it because it annoys somebody. It's true that the Arabs view this as a provocation but it's not. The Temple Mount is an ancient Jewish holy site and people want to visit it because people like to visit ancient holy sites of their religion. Jews who visit the Temple mount for religious reasons don't desecrate the mosque and in fact they don't get near the mosque because they aren't allowed to according to Jewish law.
Here are the roots of the problem with religious nationalism.
"Some of these religious nationalists seem determined to poke and provoke the Arab community."
"Some of these religious nationalists seem determined to poke and provoke the Jewish community."
"Some of these Shiite religious nationalists seem determined to poke and provoke the Sunni community."
"Some of these Sunni religious nationalists seem determined to poke and provoke the Shiite community."
It goes in every direction and won't stop until everyone agrees that it's mishegas.
I especially like how Kling has explained the draw of the right. That makes sense, at least for voters near the "middle" politically. I also like his description of the left but I'm a bit less certain it is correct.
Or maybe what I wrote is a bit backwards and there isn't a draw to the right as much as a repulsion from the left. I'm not sure any of the specifics are the same in US politics but it seems something similar us happening in the US and I'd definitely say what has been happening in the US is repulsion away from the left rather than a draw towards ethnocracy or even the right more generally. How else to explain increasing black and Hispanic Republican votes?
The American Left is inviting the Israelis into the abattoir.
“…like many leftist causes, a mindset that leads to trying to destroy (a) civiliation in order to save it.”
Events of the 19th and 20th centuries should have put paid to this assertion. The aim is not to save, rather to replace.
Gordis: Maybe there are others who desire neither an “humble” Israel or one desperate for international support but yes nice. These may be the same people who want those same things including survival in a dangerous world for their own countries. And what does socialism” got to do with it?)
And why should US policy move toward as “one state solution?” unless Israeli politicians cannot find a way not to rule over a lot of Palestinians who do not wish to be ruled over. Israel is just one more “flawed country surviving in a very troubled [world]”
[Israeli Arabs killing Jews because of BLM? Surely you don’t believe that.]