Can "a Jewish state" be a democracy?

[eCitizen]

There is nothing unique about Israels position. The Arabs that left, left fully with the expectation that they would return to take possession of the property of dead jews.

Well ummm. No. What is unique about Israel's position is the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has ratified and by whioh it is bound.

As is demonstrated in the Haaretz article I've posted twice in this thread and meticulously researched in the published works of modern Israeli historians, the Palestinians did not leave of their own accord but were driven out by Zionist militias.

Perhaps you have some personal stake in propagating the mythology that Israel has constructed around its founding. Tant pis.

Edited June 11, 2011 by eCitizen

[bloodyminded]

Evidently some people are still followers of the From Time Immemorial thesis...a book that has been roundly and mockingly deligitimized....in the first instance, by Israeli historians. (North American reviewers took a while to catch up to their Israeli colleagues.)

Hell, they could read Benny Morris, a seriously eminent Israeli historian...he would agree with their politics...but would laugh derisively at their "understanding" of Israeli history.

[DogOnPorch]

Benny Morris paints what he likes and ignores the rest.

[bloodyminded]

Benny Morris paints what he likes and ignores the rest.

Well, I don't know enough Morris, let alone the larger Israeli history, to argue the point. But I do know that Morris is no harsh critic; he's quite intensely patriotic. Maybe that's not too relevant; but Morris basically argues against the more triumphalist "Palestinians always wrong" narratives....but nonetheless tends to defend what Israel has done. That is, he thinks Israel has done some very bad things, and that it's bad revisionism to pretend that it hasn't; but at the same time, he will defend Israel's actions in the larger sense. I guess that explains why a lot of people find him simultaneously infuriating and enlightening. But he's definitely not an anti-Zionist.

Edited June 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

If you look back a year or so..I wrote that America will jettison Israel when they are no longer of any use as a base in the oil rich east - The smarter Jews have figured this out ----so NOW there are reports of OIL in Israel ----that is a desperate report....besides shail oil is not like an undergroud lake of oil - It is comparable to our oil sands ---and Israel is just to small to handle the waste that will be generated in the refining and mining process - Just a thought --- I hope them the best but they are not a democracy - They are a Jewish state - a nation - a large extended familiar tribe --- in in families there is no such thing as voting - there is the patriarch or the matriarch ---It's a family system - kind of like a mafia....you have the god father or mother and they call the shots - and rightfully so!

[DogOnPorch]

Well, I don't know enough Morris, let alone the larger Israeli history, to argue the point. But I do know that Morris is no harsh critic; he's quite intensely patriotic. Maybe that's not too relevant; but Morris basically argues against the more triumphalist "Palestinians always wrong" narratives....but nonetheless tends to defend what Israel has done. That is, he thinks Israel has done some very bad things, and that it's bad revisionism to pretend that it hasn't; but at the same time, he will defend Israel's actions in the larger sense. I guess that explains why a lot of people find him simultaneously infuriating and enlightening. But he's definitely not an anti-Zionist.

He's what is known as a 'New Historian' which are a pack of revisionists for the most part. Revisionists argue things like Manfred Von Richthofen died of a heart attck rather than an Allied bullet. Possible? Sure...it's possible. Likely? No...it's way down the list of likely causes of death. But NHs would go with 'heart attack'. Use the analogy as you see fit.

[bloodyminded]

He's what is known as a 'New Historian' which are a pack of revisionists for the most part. Revisionists argue things like Manfred Von Richthofen died of a heart attck rather than an Allied bullet. Possible? Sure...it's possible. Likely? No...it's way down the list of likely causes of death. But NHs would go with 'heart attack'. Use the analogy as you see fit.

That's true, but my understanding is that Morris has ideologicaly split from many of his old colleagues.

He still thinks Israel's behaviour has been illegal and murderous, but he now considers it justifiable.

Incidentally, I'm not claiming that Morris' hsitory is right. Like I said, I simply don't know.

On this continent, we have similar phenomena, outside the history academy; we've got men like Christopher Hitchens openly admitting that the Iraq war was based on deception...but that it's justifiable, because people are stupid and the neocon intellectual elites are wise, and shouldn't be bound by irritants like Democratic principles, accountabilty, and the same rules that apply to other nations regarding wars of aggression. So while hawks enjoy his articulate support, they cringe at his candour, which makes for bad optics.

[Oleg Bach]

He's what is known as a 'New Historian' which are a pack of revisionists for the most part. Revisionists argue things like Manfred Von Richthofen died of a heart attck rather than an Allied bullet. Possible? Sure...it's possible. Likely? No...it's way down the list of likely causes of death. But NHs would go with 'heart attack'. Use the analogy as you see fit.

Or that Hitler committed suicide - which is stupid - his high ranking officers killed him to shut him up...imagine who would have implicated had he been taken alive? Revisionism is nothing but an institued lie.

[DogOnPorch]

On this continent, we have similar phenomena, outside the history academy; we've got men like Christopher Hitchens openly admitting that the Iraq war was based on deception...but that it's justifiable, because people are stupid and the neocon intellectual elites are wise, and shouldn't be bound by irritants like Democratic principles, accountabilty, and the same rules that apply to other nations regarding wars of aggression. So while hawks enjoy his articulate support, they cringe at his candour, which makes for bad optics.

Hitchen, while a lot of things, isn't an historian. As for wanting to actively destroy fascism...I agree with him. Best to not let it come to you as it is with Islamic fascism. Heck, we've openned the door and offered it coffee.

DOP: What's the scimitar for?

Islam: Never you mind. Pass the sugar.

Edited June 12, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

Hitchen, while a lot of things, isn't an historian.

No, as I said, outside the history academy.

As for wanting to actively destroy fascism...I agree with him. Best to not let it come to you as it is with Islamic fascism. Heck, we've openned the door and offered it coffee.

It's hard to square "wanting to actively destroy fascism" with principles that are anti-democratic (by definition), and openly elitist and subservient to power.

[DogOnPorch]

No, as I said, outside the history academy.

It's hard to square "wanting to actively destroy fascism" with principles that are anti-democratic (by definition), and openly elitist and subservient to power.

Hitchens is a fascist, then?

:P

[Oleg Bach]

No, as I said, outside the history academy.

It's hard to square "wanting to actively destroy fascism" with principles that are anti-democratic (by definition), and openly elitist and subservient to power.

wonder what Jesus would think about all this? After all he did start one of the most powerful Jewish sect ever.

[bloodyminded]

Hitchens is a fascist, then?

:P

Certainly not. He's an authoritarian elitist who believes wise rulers should deceive the bewildered herd into wars for their own good. (It's ok, of course, for him and a few other smart guys to comprehend the "truth"...but the rest of us cannot handle staring into the abyss, like the Philosopher Kings can do.) He's become a Straussian, a believer in democratic forms, but not in democratic principles.

[DogOnPorch]

Certainly not. He's an authoritarian elitist who believes wise rulers should deceive the bewildered herd into wars for their own good. (It's ok, of course, for him and a few other smart guys to comprehend the "truth"...but the rest of us cannot handle staring into the abyss, like the Philosopher Kings can do.) He's become a Straussian, a believer in democratic forms, but not in democratic principles.

Well that probably falls somewhere between fact and opinion. Nobody says to themselves: "I'm an authoritarian elitist."

As for there being smart people and stupid people...this is a truth. For goodness sake...we have betsy trying to fit round pegs into square holes then bellowing (literally) 'Mission Accomplished' in the Bible thread.

Edited June 12, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

Well that probably falls somewhere between fact and opinion. Nobody says to themselves: "I'm an authoritarian elitist."

No, nor "I'm an Islamofascist."

But when a person defends government lying its people into war on false pretexts because of things that "the administration cannot publicly avow," as he says, he is claiming that

1. Long-cherished (in fact, enshrined) notions of democratic accountability should be dispensed with, according to the views of the very people doing the dispensing; and

2. A few courageous intellectual elites--like, oh, say, himself--can recognize this, but the dumb mass of humanity who elect the leaders simply should not know about it.

(The contradiction inherent here--since he wrote his views in a publication for public consumption--is a matter which I'm not sure if he really considered. Strauss himself, no intellectual slouch, seems to have the same problem. Perhaps it's ok for us to know we're being lied to, but it's not ok for us to know what those lies are...sort of like Ned Flanders' remark on science vs religion. )

As for there being smart people and stupid people...this is a truth. For goodness sake...we have betsy trying to fit round pegs into square holes then bellowing (literally) 'Mission Accomplished' in the Bible thread.

I'll grant you that, and your example!

But the problem with the Straussian (and Machiavellian) "wise men ruling through deceit" premise is that it takes a hypothetical construct and assumes it is lived reality.

Who the hell says that the leaders doing such things are the "wise men"? Because if they're not (and there's maybe some evidence that they aren't) it throws the whole Noble Lies construct into extreme disarray, and counterproductivity.

Now, I beg you not to get me started on Betsy! I have tried again to converse with her today, and it's left me baffled.

Edited June 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

No, nor "I'm an Islamofascist."

True enough. But the Mufti still worked for Hitler. Hamas still gives the fascist salute. I doubt Chris is any more authoritarian than ordering another scotch, in reality. Elitist...well, why not? He is a head and shoulder above many if not MOST of the Plebs. Folks may dislike elitists...but, then they're ususally the Plebs of our world.

But when a person defends government lying its people into war on false pretexts because of things that "the administration cannot publicly avow," as he says, he is claiming that

1. Long-cherished (in fact, enshrined) notions of democratic accountability should be dispensed with, according to the views of the very people doing the dispensing; and

2. A few courageous intellectual elites--like, oh, say, himself--can recognize this, but the dumb mass of humanity who elect the leaders simply should not know about it.

(The contradiction inherent here--since he wrote his views in a publication for public consumption--is a matter which I'm not sure if he really considered. Strauss himself, no intellectual slouch, seems to have the same problem. Perhaps it's ok for us to know we're being lied to, but it's not ok for us to know what those lies are...sort of like Ned Flanders' remark on science vs religion. )

See above. Even Hitchens is a human...prone to being wrong (and right) at times like us all.

I'll grant you that, and your example!

But the problem with the Straussian (and Machiavellian) "wise men ruling through deceit" premise is that it takes a hypothetical construct and assumes it is lived reality.

Who the hell says that the leaders doing such things are the "wise men"? Because if they're not (and there's maybe some evidence that they aren't) it throws the whole Noble Lies construct into extreme disarray, and counterproductivity.

Now, I beg you not to get me started on Betsy! I have tried again to converse with her today, and it's left me baffled.

It's perhaps not all 'wise men/women'...just 'bold men/women'. Normal folk really don't want the job of weathervane of civilization. Interupts hockey.

Edited June 12, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

True enough. But the Mufti still worked for Hitler. Hamas still gives the fascist salute. I doubt Chris is any more authoritarian than ordering another scotch, in reality.

No, it's all commentary and theorizing.

So we might give the same generosity to Chomsky, yes?

Elitist...well, why not? He is a head and shoulder above many if not MOST of the Plebs. Folks may dislike elitists...but, then they're ususally the Plebs of our world.

But intellectuals are exactly as wrong, and just as ofen, as is everyone else. Their grotesque errors in logic and moral lunacy should be exposed.

But I don't doubt Hitchens is a decent guy, and I respect his dazzling polymathy.

See above. Even Hitchens is a human...prone to being wrong (and right) at times like us all.

Just so.

It's perhaps not all 'wise men/women'...just 'bold men/women'. Normal folk really don't want the job of weathervane of civilization. Interupts hockey.

True. Bold is good...but only when the ideas are good. Bold can be horrible, too.

[DogOnPorch]

No, it's all commentary and theorizing.

So we might give the same generosity to Chomsky, yes?

Ah, but he does claim to be an historian.

But intellectuals are exactly as wrong, and just as ofen, as is everyone else. Their grotesque errors in logic and moral lunacy should be exposed.

But I don't doubt Hitchens is a decent guy, and I respect his dazzling polymathy.

Just so.

I think we agree that nobody is perfect. Well...'cepting me, of course.

True. Bold is good...but only when the ideas are good. Bold can be horrible, too.

It was bold for all those hippies to go against the Viet-Nam War. Pulling out cost as many lives as the war once the smoke settled over Indochina. History shows that North Viet-Nam did invade other neutral countries to accomplish their defeat of South Viet-Nam: Laos and Cambodia...allowing monsters like Pot to come to the surface. The hippies were bold...but were they right?

Edited June 14, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Oleg Bach]

I've been hugely bold in the past and totally wrong about what I am being bold about! Doctrine when institutionalized can be dangerous...it just might be flawed. Once thought has become institutionalized - progress comes to a stand still...it's about time that Israel think about the fact that the world is changing and to cling to yesterdays traditional thinking might be destructive....A Jew call Jesus once said "your traditions are killing you".....if a way of thinking has the result of creating the same mess over and over again - then it becomes a pathology.

[bloodyminded]

Ah, but he does claim to be an historian.

I think we agree that nobody is perfect. Well...'cepting me, of course.

It was bold for all those hippies to go against the Viet-Nam War. Pulling out cost as many lives as the war once the smoke settled over Indochina. History shows that North Viet-Nam did invade other neutral countries to accomplish their defeat of South Viet-Nam: Laos and Cambodia...allowing mosters like Pot to come to the surface. The hippies were bold...but were they right?

If by "hippies" you mean the anti-war left generally (most of whom weren't hippies), then the answer is yes and no, as with everyone. Closer to yes, in my view, as I'm sure doesn't surprise you.

But what else would you expect from a middle-aged lefty, especially now that I've a grandson due to arrive in six weeks, and am feeling sentimental?

[DogOnPorch]

If by "hippies" you mean the anti-war left generally (most of whom weren't hippies), then the answer is yes and no, as with everyone. Closer to yes, in my view, as I'm sure doesn't surprise you.

But what else would you expect from a middle-aged lefty, especially now that I've a grandson due to arrive in six weeks, and am feeling sentimental?

I was around for the festivities, as well.

[Oleg Bach]

I was around for the festivities, as well.

Yes I was also around for the festivities and it was a lot of fun. Was more of an up scale fashionable hippy with white silk scarf - buck skin jacket with real native beading - expensive cowboy boots...BUT I don't believe I was ever part of the ideology, more of an observer and an opportunist hiding in the house of love absorbing all the free love that the era had to offer. In the over all I look back and believe that they were not very realistic...and as I mentioned they were in dream land as the more stern and evil people took over all the systems.

There is an old hippy type that drops by and he brings this real bad music...silly crap - and he actually clings to the ideals like a lefty clinging to communism long after it has proven to be an utter murderous failure. The thing I believe that the Jewish state is all about - is a kabutz mentality of communal or communistic style living - by the very nature of their tradtions they are socialists...much like Christ who was a socialist...so as for democracy being real in Israel - it's impossible - all of their traditions lead to the left...so far left they are right wing extremists.

[Rue]

..and meticulously researched in the published works of modern Israeli historians, the Palestinians did not leave of their own accord but were driven out by Zionist militias.

Lol. That sums it up.

By the way get back to me when you can actually tell me what an historian is as opposed to someone who makes political commentary or editorialization. In your meticulous research you must have missed that one.

[Rue]

1-Do you actually have a historical argument? A fact based argument?

2-There is a program on one of the cable channels that features live video taken in American jails. Every once in a while they show a prisoner who starts throwing feces at the window of his holding cell and smearing it all over the place. Poo poo ka ka.

Indeed.

In regards to 1, no, not in response to you. With others, yes.When I respond to you since none of your comments deal with fact based arguements or history, simply your unreferenced subjective opinions, I respond accordingly.

In regards to your second comment, if you intend to go through life watching t.v. it will continue to reflect on your limited ability to conceive of things let alone perceive them. You might want to get out from the t.v. and try real life.

Here's some words by the way you might want to meticulously research:

public domain

corroborated evidence

corroborated documents

government archives

faculty of history

foot-note

bibliography

historian

history

editorialization.

Boo!

Edited June 14, 2011 by Rue

[M.Dancer]

Well ummm. No. What is unique about Israel's position is the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has ratified and by whioh it is bound.

What is unique about that? No one else has signed the GC?

Are the palestinians bound by anything?

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a?OpenDocument

When they, are their leaders have made peace, then they can file for reparations, not before.

"According to official records of the League of Nations and Arab census figure 539,000 Arabs left Israel at the urging of 7 converging Arab armies so that they would not be in the way of their attack. They promised the fleeing Arabs they would return and move into the Jews' houses after the anticipated successful annihilation of the Jews.

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Refugees.asp#Whathap