UN apologists: respond to this.

[Agent327]

Countries like the US can intervene according to their desires by labeling their troops as being "international." The UN doesn't even have troops of its own.

I fail to see your point. Especially in the light of your earlier UN criticism, but more importantly, because UN forces are only effective for as long as parties agree to respect their presence. Unlike, say, US or Russian forces. I'm also not sure why you are going off on a tangent here, when UNIFIL's presence clearly is in the interest of the state of Israel. Which would be the point you are ignoring.

The "mandate" of the UN doesn't apparently extend to fighting. Even though it had an overwhelming force in that situation.

Maybe that's why they are called peace keepers? Under circumstances UN forces are allowed to defend themselves. they are not allowed to engage in aggression. The reasons for this seem rather obvious, I would think.

Israeli Arabs have the freedom to express their political beliefs and they can emigrate. As far as I know, the same rights are not afforded to North Koreans.

I'm quite aware. But that wasn't your argument.

I've already said the Switzerland is not a multi-national country.

Not by your personal definition maybe, Oddly, your personal definition isn't the general definition.

Yeah, kind of. But the entire national culture revolves around the Jewish constituency. The Israeli Arabs tend not to identify as Israeli.

I was referring to the multi-ethnic background of Jewish Israelis, actually. Didn't you just say you were of Moroccan descent? That applies to practically all Jewish immigrants: they're all from a country that isn't Israel.

A nation is a societal object. Therefore, it exists by merit of people acting as though it exists.

You are basically saying the same thing worded differently twice. Therefore, I'm not sure what the 'therefore' does in there.

The more relevant question is what the nationals view their identity as being about. In the case of secular Zionism, it was common interests among a class of people excluded from the rigid nationalism Europe as well as perceived common roots. The reason that this form of Zionism is dying is that it really doesn't have much relevance anymore.

Good point.

Zionism is authentic because Israeli Jews believe it is more natural to live among other Jews, to have representatives for the Jewish community as a whole, and that their fate should be bound up with that of their fellow Jews. Palestinian nationalism may have similar ideas, but they all come back to one thing: possessing the land of Palestine. If they achieved their goal, they would simply fall into sectarianism or tribalism.

You mean as Israelis do? How is that an objection?

 

[Traitorfish]

A nation is a societal object. Therefore, it exists by merit of people acting as though it exists. The more relevant question is what the nationals view their identity as being about. In the case of secular Zionism, it was common interests among a class of people excluded from the rigid nationalism Europe as well as perceived common roots. The reason that this form of Zionism is dying is that it really doesn't have much relevance anymore.

But to describe a nation as an act of collective imagination, although I think quite accurate, is essentially a rejection of nationalism. For a civic nationalist, a nation is an actually-existing political community, and nationalism simply represents the assertion of sovereignty or independence by that community. For a cultural nationalist, a nation is an actually-existing cultural, ethnic or linguistic community, and nationalism represents the realisation of that pre-political community in the sphere of politics. If a nation is essentially a fiction, even a fiction which is given a sort of reality by collective action, the nation as such can have no right to exist, let alone to independence or sovereignty, and any meaningfully nationalist project becomes impossible. "Nation" becomes descriptive, and that hardly seems compatible with a Zionist outlook.

What is authentic at one point may not be authentic at another. Regardless, I agree that timing doesn't matter in nationalism. I'm just responding to people here who think it does, using their own assumptions.

They were arguing from physical occupation of the land, not the assertion of a particular identity. They argued that the people who do identify as Palestinians are mostly descended from people who have lived in the area of Mandatory Palestine since time immemorial, which gives them as strong a claim to occupation as Israeli Jews, who for the most part have not. Now, it's fair to say that the identification of living in a particular town or region with living in "Palestine" has only recently acquired the significance that proponents of Palestinian nationality want it to have, and so ancestral association with one place does not clearly translate into a claim to a whole country- but if one asserts that nationalism is a truthful proposition, that's besides the point, so you can't contest their claims on those grounds without rejecting a fairly crucial part of the nationalist position.

Zionism is authentic because Israeli Jews believe it is more natural to live among other Jews, to have representatives for the Jewish community as a whole, and that their fate should be bound up with that of their fellow Jews. Palestinian nationalism may have similar ideas, but they all come back to one thing: possessing the land of Palestine. If they achieved their goal, they would simply fall into sectarianism or tribalism.

Palestinian nationalism is hardly unique in lending a lot of significance to land. Germans didn't sing "from the Meuse to the Memel, from the Adige to the Belt" because they just really like talking about rivers. Zionism is unusual in being a nationalist project without any strong attachments to a particular territory- and at this point, when the State of Israel is three generations old, I'm not sure it's even true. You'd have to argue that Palestinian nationalism is only about land, that the emphasis Palestinian nationalists place on the redemption of Palestinian territories is evidence of a lack of substantive identity and not just a symptom of dispossession.

After all, Native American activists will spend a lot of time arguing for the redemption of historic territories, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that there's nothing more to, for example, Lakota identity than a few thousand acres in North Dakota.

 

[timtofly]

Palestinian nationalism is hardly unique in lending a lot of significance to land. Germans didn't sing "from the Meuse to the Memel, from the Adige to the Belt" because they just really like talking about rivers. Zionism is unusual in being a nationalist project without any strong attachments to a particular territory- and at this point, when the State of Israel is three generations old, I'm not sure it's even true.

Perhaps the key here is having several anthems?

 

[tetley]

I'm not sure what this is about Zionism being a new thing, but Jewish nationalism has always been around, since 586 BC, and it has always been specifically the region of Judea. The Maccabean revolt, the failed Roman and Bar Kochba rebellions which were bloodily suppressed. The angle may be different, a few shades of grey or nuances might be different, but the same thing has always been there.

 

[Traitorfish]

All of those movements were religiously-motivated, though, or at least were strongly presented as such by their militants, and concerned with cultural or linguistic identity only insofar as it was deemed to be of religious significance. There was no interest in a "Jewish people" independent of a religious community gathered around the Temple, which puts it firmly at odds with modern ethnic nationalism, even religiously-inflected nationalisms, which see the national community in fundamentally linguistic or cultural terms.

 

[tetley]

Sounds about right. And mix in a little bit of entitlement based on lineage. Not a whole lot has changed.

 

[Agent327]

Except, of course, in 586 BC, 1500 AD or even 1788 AD nobody would have heard of this word 'nationalism'. Applying modern words to pre-modern situations is anachronism. As Traitorfish correctly, and subtly, was trying to point out.

 

[tetley]

Of course they didn't hear the word 'nationalism'. They didn't speak English. The point is...?

 

[Tahuti]

Of course they didn't hear the word 'nationalism'. They didn't speak English. The point is...?

...how about the point being that Jewish identity goes beyond modern nationalism?

 

[tetley]

Okay...sounds pretty much like exactly what I was saying. Jewish nationalism DID exist ever since 586 BC, by whatever word people call it.

 

[Agent327]

No, it really, really didn't. Nationalism is a 19th century invention. Your statement makes as much sense as calling the Qu'ran a fascist book.

 

[tetley]

It's really not. Jews aspired to get their own nation ever since 586 BC. That's nationalism. The word "nationalism" is the new thing, and nothing more.

You might as well say Zionism is new because there is Kabbalah involved. Jewish-pagan syncretism has been around since even before Israel became a nation (there's that word again). Kabbalah is just the newer spin on it.

Same story, different words.


And P.S. calling Koran a fascist book doesn't make any sense because it is not a fascist book. That simple.

 

[Agent327]

It's really not. Jews aspired to get their own nation ever since 586 BC.

Nope.

That's nationalism. The word "nationalism" is the new thing, and nothing more.

Nope.

You might as well say Zionism is new because there is Kabbalah involved.

Really? Since when?

Jewish-pagan syncretism has been around since even before Israel became a nation (there's that word again). Kabbalah is just the newer spin on it.

Same story, different words.

Actually, I don't know what story you are trying to tell. History it is not.

And P.S. calling Koran a fascist book doesn't make any sense because it is not a fascist book. That simple.

Calling things 'nationalism' before such a thing existed - exactly the same. That simple.

You see, nationalism didn't really develop before nation-sates developed. and nation-states are a typical 19th century phenomenon. The Israel you speak of didn't really exist, except for a very short time, and during that time it wasn't a Jewish national state. Not only that, but it soon split into two states, before both were wiped of the map. Secondly, it was only after 586 BC that a sort of Jewishness developed, ultimately resulting in a - more or less - orthodox Judaism. No Jewish state resulted form it, however, because that wasn't a central element in Judaism. It was a central element of Jewish messianism, as the Maschiach was expected to unite Israel (the Jews) under God before the final judgment. and devout Jews are still waiting for that messiah, despite the existence of the state of Israel.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's really not. Jews aspired to get their own nation ever since 586 BC. That's nationalism. The word "nationalism" is the new thing, and nothing more.

That's not really true. For Jews of ancient Israel, Jewry was defined as a religious community, defined by shared rituals and institutions which formed a bond between that community and God. Modern-day Jewish nationalists believe that Jews are a cultural community, defined by shared culture and history which distinguish Jews from other ethnic and cultural groups. The former aspire to political sovereignty in the form of a divinely-sponsored monarchy or theocracy, the latter as a modern, popular state. They both represent a belief that it would be a Good Thing if all the world's Jews were gathered together in one place, under one set of laws and institutions, but the nature of that gathering, the definition of the place, the nature of the laws and the institutions, and even the very definition of "Jew" are all fundamentally different.

Certainly one can argue that there is something in Jewish history, an inherited longing for a place where all Jews can live together as Jews, without domination or interference from Gentiles, that made Jews more likely to accept a nationalist project than we might expect from such a widely-scattered and diverse group of peoples, but it's another thing altogether to say that this inheritance represents the continuation of a single, coherent project from beginning to end.

 

[Mouthwash]

I fail to see your point. Especially in the light of your earlier UN criticism, but more importantly, because UN forces are only effective for as long as parties agree to respect their presence. Unlike, say, US or Russian forces. I'm also not sure why you are going off on a tangent here, when UNIFIL's presence clearly is in the interest of the state of Israel. Which would be the point you are ignoring.

You don't seem to have any point.

Maybe that's why they are called peace keepers? Under circumstances UN forces are allowed to defend themselves. they are not allowed to engage in aggression. The reasons for this seem rather obvious, I would think.

They are called peace keepers because they keep the peace. In a country. VVhich requires them to take actions against violent elements vvithin that country, not merely those that aggress against them.

I'm quite aware. But that wasn't your argument.

Did you or did you not compare Israel to the DPRK?

Not by your personal definition maybe, Oddly, your personal definition isn't the general definition.

VVhat is the general definition and vvhy should I accept it?

I was referring to the multi-ethnic background of Jewish Israelis, actually. Didn't you just say you were of Moroccan descent? That applies to practically all Jewish immigrants: they're all from a country that isn't Israel.

I don't count them as ethnicities. They're ancestral and cultural groups, maybe, but the idea of ethnic tensions betvveen Moroccan-Israelis and Iranian-Israelis is laughable.

You are basically saying the same thing worded differently twice. Therefore, I'm not sure what the 'therefore' does in there.

I'm clearing it up, and adding the 'therefore' for emphasis. It vvorks in English, although it probably isn't technically correct grammar.

You mean as Israelis do? How is that an objection?

I mean as Israelis don't. VVe're a pretty tight-knit group.

But to describe a nation as an act of collective imagination, although I think quite accurate, is essentially a rejection of nationalism. For a civic nationalist, a nation is an actually-existing political community, and nationalism simply represents the assertion of sovereignty or independence by that community. For a cultural nationalist, a nation is an actually-existing cultural, ethnic or linguistic community, and nationalism represents the realisation of that pre-political community in the sphere of politics.

I don't understand hovv any nation-state can come about vvithout first being a "pre-political community."

If a nation is essentially a fiction, even a fiction which is given a sort of reality by collective action, the nation as such can have no right to exist, let alone to independence or sovereignty, and any meaningfully nationalist project becomes impossible. "Nation" becomes descriptive, and that hardly seems compatible with a Zionist outlook.

It is possible to accept the efficacy of nationalism vvithout accepting its truth, just like you can believe that religion is helpful to society vvithout actually being religious. Even vvere nationalism false, it doesn't follovv that nation-states have no right to exist.

They were arguing from physical occupation of the land, not the assertion of a particular identity. They argued that the people who do identify as Palestinians are mostly descended from people who have lived in the area of Mandatory Palestine since time immemorial,

Is... is this deliberate?

which gives them as strong a claim to occupation as Israeli Jews, who for the most part have not. Now, it's fair to say that the identification of living in a particular town or region with living in "Palestine" has only recently acquired the significance that proponents of Palestinian nationality want it to have, and so ancestral association with one place does not clearly translate into a claim to a whole country- but if one asserts that nationalism is a truthful proposition, that's besides the point, so you can't contest their claims on those grounds without rejecting a fairly crucial part of the nationalist position.

I don't accept that any nation has the right to possess any land; only that they have the right to self-determination. Zionism may have claimed Palestine, but as I've argued it made much more sense at the time (and many of the early settlers didn't even vvant a state to begin vvith).

Palestinian nationalism is hardly unique in lending a lot of significance to land. Germans didn't sing "from the Meuse to the Memel, from the Adige to the Belt" because they just really like talking about rivers. Zionism is unusual in being a nationalist project without any strong attachments to a particular territory- and at this point, when the State of Israel is three generations old, I'm not sure it's even true. You'd have to argue that Palestinian nationalism is only about land, that the emphasis Palestinian nationalists place on the redemption of Palestinian territories is evidence of a lack of substantive identity and not just a symptom of dispossession.

I suppose it could be seen as civic nationalism. Just of a kind that I (and every liberal should) hold in contempt.

 

[Agent327]

Certainly one can argue that there is something in Jewish history, an inherited longing for a place where all Jews can live together as Jews, without domination or interference from Gentiles, that made Jews more likely to accept a nationalist project than we might expect from such a widely-scattered and diverse group of peoples, but it's another thing altogether to say that this inheritance represents the continuation of a single, coherent project from beginning to end.

That's actually not quite true. Even in Israel today there are Orthodox Jews that don't see the modern state of Israel as in accordance with their beliefs at all. As you hinted at, the Israel that Jews through the centuries longed for was a spiritual place, not an earthly state. Early Zionism actually had to do some very hard persuasion to convince devout Jews that a modern day state of Israel was a Good Thing. And indeed, the modern state of Israel was founded by non-religious Jews. The tipping point really was the traumatic experience of WW II.

 

[Mouthwash]

That's not really true. For Jews of ancient Israel, Jewry was defined as a religious community, defined by shared rituals and institutions which formed a bond between that community and God. Modern-day Jewish nationalists believe that Jews are a cultural community, defined by shared culture and history which distinguish Jews from other ethnic and cultural groups. The former aspire to political sovereignty in the form of a divinely-sponsored monarchy or theocracy, the latter as a modern, popular state. They both represent a belief that it would be a Good Thing if all the world's Jews were gathered together in one place, under one set of laws and institutions, but the nature of that gathering, the definition of the place, the nature of the laws and the institutions, and even the very definition of "Jew" are all fundamentally different.

Certainly one can argue that there is something in Jewish history, an inherited longing for a place where all Jews can live together as Jews, without domination or interference from Gentiles, that made Jews more likely to accept a nationalist project than we might expect from such a widely-scattered and diverse group of peoples, but it's another thing altogether to say that this inheritance represents the continuation of a single, coherent project from beginning to end.

Yes, Europe has this division betvveen "religion" and "nationality," but in the Middle East they are one and the same.

That's actually not quite true. Even in Israel today there are Orthodox Jews that don't see the modern state of Israel as in accordance with their beliefs at all. As you hinted at, the Israel that Jews through the centuries longed for was a spiritual place, not an earthly state. Early Zionism actually had to do some very hard persuasion to convince devout Jews that a modern day state of Israel was a Good Thing. And indeed, the modern state of Israel was founded by non-religious Jews. The tipping point really was WW II.

Ideas aren't rigid, though. Zionism is becoming religious in character, and I don't accept that this is a betrayal of the "spiritual" Zionism of medieval Judaism. The only difference betvveen them to begin vvith vvas their method.

 

[timtofly]

That's actually not quite true. Even in Israel today there are Orthodox Jews that don't see the modern state of Israel as in accordance with their beliefs at all. As you hinted at, the Israel that Jews through the centuries longed for was a spiritual place, not an earthly state. Early Zionism actually had to do some very hard persuasion to convince devout Jews that a modern day state of Israel was a Good Thing. And indeed, the modern state of Israel was founded by non-religious Jews. The tipping point really was the traumatic experience of WW II.

You are slightly off on your theology. The Jews are looking for an eternal nation on earth. It was only "spiritual" because their God has yet to come in bodily form. That was the promise given to Abraham. Technically God promised two Nations to come from Abraham. One nation has become practically extinct. I suppose one could toss out prophecy as immaterial. The "Roman" church already declared that most OT prophecies have been fulfilled and that was way before the modern notion of what a nation was.

 

[Agent327]

You don't seem to have any point.

Well, you can pretend, yes. But as such that is a rather weak response.

They are called peace keepers because they keep the peace. In a country. VVhich requires them to take actions against violent elements vvithin that country, not merely those that aggress against them.

Nobody was arguing that.

Did you or did you not compare Israel to the DPRK?

No. I compared what you said with North Korea.

VVhat is the general definition and vvhy should I accept it?

You can use any definition you please. But if you use a personal definition, expect some confusion.

I don't count them as ethnicities. They're ancestral and cultural groups, maybe, but the idea of ethnic tensions betvveen Moroccan-Israelis and Iranian-Israelis is laughable.

Again, I don't think anybody was arguing that. Certainly not me.

I'm clearing it up, and adding the 'therefore' for emphasis. It vvorks in English, although it probably isn't technically correct grammar.

It's not the grammar, it's the illogicality of putting 'therefore' between two sentences that say basically the same thing.

I mean as Israelis don't. VVe're a pretty tight-knit group.

I suppose you mean Jewish Israelis. And no, you're not. There's liberal Jews, Orthodox Jews, there's atheist Jews, all kinds. What they share is being Israeli citizens. There are plenty of Jews who are not and are perfectly fine with that.

I don't understand hovv any nation-state can come about vvithout first being a "pre-political community."

It's the state that makes the nation (community), not the nation that makes the state. How are Israeli Palestinians part of your perceived 'pre-political community'?

It is possible to accept the efficacy of nationalism vvithout accepting its truth, just like you can believe that religion is helpful to society vvithout actually being religious. Even vvere nationalism false, it doesn't follovv that nation-states have no right to exist.

The second doesn't follow from the first. And again, nobody is arguing that nation-states have no right to exist.

Yes, Europe has this division betvveen "religion" and "nationality," but in the Middle East they are one and the same.

Check Lebanon, Your generalization doesn't apply.

Ideas aren't rigid, though. Zionism is becoming religious in character, and I don't accept that this is a betrayal of the "spiritual" Zionism of medieval Judaism. The only difference betvveen them to begin vvith vvas their method.

If you mean that relgious right wing parties are trying to take over Zionism, then you may be right. But as you yourself know, it wasn't religious to begin with, rather the opposite. But to think that modern Zionism has anything to to with the spiritual nature of Judaism in the Middle Ages, is a gross simplification. The idea that 'we Jews need to have a state' simply didn't exist. You won't find any source to support that statement. Yes, Jews did visit Palestine to see the places of old (places they'd never seen). Some even went there to stay. But overall, Jewry did not. Medieval Judaism simply did not have this 'method' you speak of.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, you can pretend, yes. But as such that is a rather weak response.

It's the only possible response to incoherence.

Nobody was arguing that.

You vvere.

No. I compared what you said with North Korea.

That plenty of native inhabitants of the land seem quite friendly vvith Israelis and their nationalism? This is a verifiable fact.

You can use any definition you please. But if you use a personal definition, expect some confusion.

I repeat my question.

Again, I don't think anybody was arguing that. Certainly not me.

Then the definition of ethnicity is no longer useful, since it no longer refers to to distinct group-identities.

It's not the grammar, it's the illogicality of putting 'therefore' between two sentences that say basically the same thing.

VVhich is grammar. My vvording vvas used for emphasis despite not being grammatically accurate.

I suppose you mean Jewish Israelis. And no, you're not. There's liberal Jews, Orthodox Jews, there's atheist Jews, all kinds. What they share is being Israeli citizens. There are plenty of Jews who are not and are perfectly fine with that.

Actually, pretty much all Jevvish denominations get along fine in Israel. The Druze and Christians also get along fine vvith Jevvs. Heck, even the African Hebrevv Israelites are accepted. It's just Palestinian Muslims that seem to have the problem.

It's the state that makes the nation (community), not the nation that makes the state.

That is possible, but rare. Most of the time it is the nation that makes the state. Example: Germany

How are Israeli Palestinians part of your perceived 'pre-political community'?

They aren't. They're a national minority.

The second doesn't follow from the first.

VVhy not?

And again, nobody is arguing that nation-states have no right to exist.

Except for Traitorfish, the guy I quoted and vvas responding to.

Check Lebanon, Your generalization doesn't apply.

Lebanon is the prime example of religion and identity being the same thing.

If you mean that relgious right wing parties are trying to take over Zionism, then you may be right.

No one is trying to 'take over' anything. That's just drivel spouted by secular Zionists vvho are upset that their vievvs are losing ground.

But as you yourself know, it wasn't religious to begin with, rather the opposite. But to think that modern Zionism has anything to to with the spiritual nature of Judaism in the Middle Ages, is a gross simplification. The idea that 'we Jews need to have a state' simply didn't exist. You won't find any source to support that statement. Yes, Jews did visit Palestine to see the places of old (places they'd never seen). Some even went there to stay. But overall, Jewry did not. Medieval Judaism simply did not have this 'method' you speak of.

The Messiah vvas explicitly stated to bring in all Jevvs, including the dead, to Israel. There vvas a natural consequence to this.