Israel General Election Thread: March 17 2015

[MalaspinaGold]

Also, apparently Zionist Union waffled on Zoabi, saying they'l support whatever the committee decides.

[MalaspinaGold]

This is Labor we're talking about. Herzog will get a primary regardless.

[MalaspinaGold]

File this under "so horrendous it is hilarious"
http://972mag.com/watch-the-most-anti-semitic-israeli-cartoon-ever-made/102698/
I think we've hit peak irony...

[MalaspinaGold]

If all the parties stated before what coalition they would join, elections would be much less entertaining.

[MalaspinaGold]

So Bennett should benefit, and Lieberman/Kachlon will suffer?

How did Odeh/Galon/Deri/Lapid do?

[MalaspinaGold]

Aren't you a neoliberal though?

[MalaspinaGold]

Just think it's ironic that "THE great FF" for you is a commie

OTOH there's not doubt that Tamar Gozansky is a great FF.

[MalaspinaGold]

Just when we needed him... Frank Underwood shows up:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/1.644576

[MalaspinaGold]

Watching two ex-Soviet Jews argue is never a good idea (speaking as someone whose mother is an ex-Soviet Jew.) This is not proving an exception to the rule.

[MalaspinaGold]

So, she never, to the best of your knowledge, stole anything from anyone. Nor, for that matter, did the party she belonged to - though they might do that under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, in your definition, they are "thieves". If there is a definition of bullshyte, this is it.

You do not need to lecture me on Communism - I have been an anti-communist since before you were born. However, when God created Israel, he took three characteristics: 1) Jewishness, 2) basic human decency, and 3) supporting anybody but the Communists in Israel - and ruled that nobody can possess more than two out of three of these. Naturally, this puts me into a bind.

So can an Arab support anyone he/she wants? And if so, does this apply to the Druze?

[MalaspinaGold]

I'll make myself clearer: can an Arab/Druze support anyone he/she wants, while retaining human decency?

[MalaspinaGold]

But a Jew can't?

[MalaspinaGold]

Moving aside from this silly discussion, Herzog gives the middle finger to Lapid, via the Haredim.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Netanyahu-says-will-bring-haredi-parties-into-next-coalition-abolish-criminal-sanctions-392570

[MalaspinaGold]

1. In my idiolect I use ispravnik to mean "the guy who cuts Jewish beards". I admit, I do not even pretend to use it in a historic context. Try to abstract from the "historic context" and you will, hopefully, figure out what I mean.

2. As you can, probably, figure out, I have a problem considering any Zionist party "bicommunal".

3. The reason, of course, is, that, while I share with most of my Jewish brethren the fascination with Jewish history, I disagree on the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from it. Whereas I get from history the distaste to the figure of the ispravnik, Zionists merely objected to the ispravnik not being Jewish. I find that objection to be inadequate.

3a. Well, clearly, a party that these days, at the present level of diversity of US population, is represented in Congress almost exclusively by White Christians (a token Jew and a token black notwhithstanding) can hardly be perceived as non-communal.

4. Well, I guess, it is hard for me to be more explicit on why one could want to join Hadash (or to stay as far away from Israel as possible, in order to avoid joining Hadash, as is my case). To make it very plain: I do not like the ispravnik parties. More generally: I dislike nation states.

5. Meretz is a Zionist party.

I guess, I have been clear, haven´t I?

This is an objectively false statement. With your superior intellect I hope you can figure out why.

[MalaspinaGold]

By your definition Einstein wanted to get his own Ispravnik.

Though to answer the question more directly- if a person is in his own homeland, it's very much harder to get killed off (not saying it's not impossible, but it makes it much less likely to occur).

[MalaspinaGold]

By your definition Einstein wanted to get his own Ispravnik.

But, apparently, he never wanted to live under one.

In any case, what does Einstein has to do with this? Are we discussing physics?

1) cite

2) You said that by going to Israel the Jews were simply looking for Ispravniks of their own. While Einstein did not himself move to Israel (though he almost did at one or two times of his life), he was deeply involved in what one might consider to be the "Zionist cause".
Now here's a task for you: look up Einstein's interpretation of Zionism, since you obviously aren't familiar with it. Then tell me with a straight face that Einstein was just looking for an Ispravnik.

[MalaspinaGold]

By your definition Einstein wanted to get his own Ispravnik.

But, apparently, he never wanted to live under one.

In any case, what does Einstein has to do with this? Are we discussing physics?

1) cite

I am going by revealed preference: he himself never moved to Israel. Clearly, he did not want a Jewish ispravnik where he lived.

He himself never moved to Israel because he was happy living in Princeton, with a nice job that allowed him to do what he wanted. Not for any reason having to do with Ispravniks, else he would not have been one of the prime movers in raising money for those who did move there.

[MalaspinaGold]

1. In my idiolect I use ispravnik to mean "the guy who cuts Jewish beards". I admit, I do not even pretend to use it in a historic context. Try to abstract from the "historic context" and you will, hopefully, figure out what I mean.

2. As you can, probably, figure out, I have a problem considering any Zionist party "bicommunal".

3. The reason, of course, is, that, while I share with most of my Jewish brethren the fascination with Jewish history, I disagree on the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from it. Whereas I get from history the distaste to the figure of the ispravnik, Zionists merely objected to the ispravnik not being Jewish. I find that objection to be inadequate.

3a. Well, clearly, a party that these days, at the present level of diversity of US population, is represented in Congress almost exclusively by White Christians (a token Jew and a token black notwhithstanding) can hardly be perceived as non-communal.

4. Well, I guess, it is hard for me to be more explicit on why one could want to join Hadash (or to stay as far away from Israel as possible, in order to avoid joining Hadash, as is my case). To make it very plain: I do not like the ispravnik parties. More generally: I dislike nation states.

5. Meretz is a Zionist party.

I guess, I have been clear, haven´t I?

This is an objectively false statement. With your superior intellect I hope you can figure out why.

All I noted was the fact that the bolded statement was objectively false. Now that you are changing your argument, I must assume that you concur.

It should also be noted that Mapam initially supported a binational state, but eventually reconciled itself with a Jewish state. As a matter of fact, so did Einstein.

One more thing- if you consider token minorities to not be evidence of bicommunalism, then the fact that consistently MK Khenin was the only Jew placed on the Hadash list, coupled with the fact that 90% of Hadash voters are Arab, I find it very hard to consider Hadash itself to be bicommunal. And if Hadash is bicommunal, then you have yet to show how for instance Meretz (with an Arab elected to the number 3 spot) is not bicommunal. And as can be shown above "muh Zionism" is not an adequate excuse. And while you might have a point that the vast majority of Arabs in Israel are not Zionist, the vast majority of Jews are.

[MalaspinaGold]

Last time, no Jew other than Khenin was in the top 6.

[MalaspinaGold]

While it is admirable that Hadash would include a second member of the "other" in the top seven, that should be easier to do when the "other" is 80% of the population, rather than when the "other" is 20%. As such, the achievement is less impressive.

Back on topic, this happened:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.645114
Marzel should be sitting in jail right now.

[MalaspinaGold]

1. In my idiolect I use ispravnik to mean "the guy who cuts Jewish beards". I admit, I do not even pretend to use it in a historic context. Try to abstract from the "historic context" and you will, hopefully, figure out what I mean.

2. As you can, probably, figure out, I have a problem considering any Zionist party "bicommunal".

3. The reason, of course, is, that, while I share with most of my Jewish brethren the fascination with Jewish history, I disagree on the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from it. Whereas I get from history the distaste to the figure of the ispravnik, Zionists merely objected to the ispravnik not being Jewish. I find that objection to be inadequate.

3a. Well, clearly, a party that these days, at the present level of diversity of US population, is represented in Congress almost exclusively by White Christians (a token Jew and a token black notwhithstanding) can hardly be perceived as non-communal.

4. Well, I guess, it is hard for me to be more explicit on why one could want to join Hadash (or to stay as far away from Israel as possible, in order to avoid joining Hadash, as is my case). To make it very plain: I do not like the ispravnik parties. More generally: I dislike nation states.

5. Meretz is a Zionist party.

I guess, I have been clear, haven´t I?

This is an objectively false statement. With your superior intellect I hope you can figure out why.

All I noted was the fact that the bolded statement was objectively false. Now that you are changing your argument, I must assume that you concur.

I do not concur, and I do not change my argument. They all, as you say, at the very least, reconciled themselves to the fact that what they really wanted was their own ispravnik. I do not like that in the least.

I repeat, look at Einstein's own statements, and you can see for yourself that it is an objectively false statement.

[MalaspinaGold]

1. In my idiolect I use ispravnik to mean "the guy who cuts Jewish beards". I admit, I do not even pretend to use it in a historic context. Try to abstract from the "historic context" and you will, hopefully, figure out what I mean.

2. As you can, probably, figure out, I have a problem considering any Zionist party "bicommunal".

3. The reason, of course, is, that, while I share with most of my Jewish brethren the fascination with Jewish history, I disagree on the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from it. Whereas I get from history the distaste to the figure of the ispravnik, Zionists merely objected to the ispravnik not being Jewish. I find that objection to be inadequate.

3a. Well, clearly, a party that these days, at the present level of diversity of US population, is represented in Congress almost exclusively by White Christians (a token Jew and a token black notwhithstanding) can hardly be perceived as non-communal.

4. Well, I guess, it is hard for me to be more explicit on why one could want to join Hadash (or to stay as far away from Israel as possible, in order to avoid joining Hadash, as is my case). To make it very plain: I do not like the ispravnik parties. More generally: I dislike nation states.

5. Meretz is a Zionist party.

I guess, I have been clear, haven´t I?

This is an objectively false statement. With your superior intellect I hope you can figure out why.

All I noted was the fact that the bolded statement was objectively false. Now that you are changing your argument, I must assume that you concur.

I do not concur, and I do not change my argument. They all, as you say, at the very least, reconciled themselves to the fact that what they really wanted was their own ispravnik. I do not like that in the least.

I repeat, look at Einstein's own statements, and you can see for yourself that it is an objectively false statement.

Our friend Vosem here would object to saying that some Communists long ago were not vurdalacs, by pointing out that what matters is the actual, implemented Communism. Einstein, whatever his ideas were, has nothing to do with actual implementation of the Zionist idea. May be, somewhere in another universe, there would exist a non-ispravnik state of Israel. But we only have one empirically observed implementation to consider.

This would be perfectly well and good, however I am not Vosem, and thus, I do not agree with his premise. Though in one small way he was right- if this were accurate, the fact that communism has chalked up more failures than Zionism (many to just one) would lend credence to the idea that communism is a worse ideology to support than Zionism. (Note that I am not making this assertion, so you do not have to waste a post responding).

And you are also ignoring the fact that Einstein wasn't a starry-eyed intellectual, he was one of the prime movers behind the Zionist movement. The fact that Mapam, whose ideology would have been most in line Einstein, got the second largest number of seats in the first Knesset, is fairly illuminating.

[MalaspinaGold]

The point of the post (which I don't think you missed) is that, because of community solidarity in minority communities, bicommunalism the way you define it can be virtually impossible to achieve, and leave you in the unenviable position of supporting very extremist parties because of it. The Republican Party is not a threat to Jews and blacks, even though they largely support its opponents. While there is a lot more bad blood in Israel, Likud is not much of a threat to Israeli Arabs either (who are, in fact, exempt from the draft -- it's probably more of a threat to your typical Israeli Jew).

Being a Jew means being a minority. When they became a majority, they stopped being Jews.

This is an opinion. Can you substantiate it?

You won't catch me defending Meretz (which, unlike Hadash's token historical leftovers, is an actual bicommunal party, though still largely majority Jewish) too often, but it is precisely Meretz's Zionism and acknowledgement of human rights that make it a democratic party acceptable in a democratic society.

What does Zionism has to do with human rights (except in the breach, of course)?

Are you arguing that Zionists can't be in favor of human rights?

[MalaspinaGold]

1. In my idiolect I use ispravnik to mean "the guy who cuts Jewish beards". I admit, I do not even pretend to use it in a historic context. Try to abstract from the "historic context" and you will, hopefully, figure out what I mean.

2. As you can, probably, figure out, I have a problem considering any Zionist party "bicommunal".

3. The reason, of course, is, that, while I share with most of my Jewish brethren the fascination with Jewish history, I disagree on the lessons we are supposed to have learnt from it. Whereas I get from history the distaste to the figure of the ispravnik, Zionists merely objected to the ispravnik not being Jewish. I find that objection to be inadequate.

3a. Well, clearly, a party that these days, at the present level of diversity of US population, is represented in Congress almost exclusively by White Christians (a token Jew and a token black notwhithstanding) can hardly be perceived as non-communal.

4. Well, I guess, it is hard for me to be more explicit on why one could want to join Hadash (or to stay as far away from Israel as possible, in order to avoid joining Hadash, as is my case). To make it very plain: I do not like the ispravnik parties. More generally: I dislike nation states.

5. Meretz is a Zionist party.

I guess, I have been clear, haven´t I?

This is an objectively false statement. With your superior intellect I hope you can figure out why.

All I noted was the fact that the bolded statement was objectively false. Now that you are changing your argument, I must assume that you concur.

I do not concur, and I do not change my argument. They all, as you say, at the very least, reconciled themselves to the fact that what they really wanted was their own ispravnik. I do not like that in the least.

I repeat, look at Einstein's own statements, and you can see for yourself that it is an objectively false statement.

Our friend Vosem here would object to saying that some Communists long ago were not vurdalacs, by pointing out that what matters is the actual, implemented Communism. Einstein, whatever his ideas were, has nothing to do with actual implementation of the Zionist idea. May be, somewhere in another universe, there would exist a non-ispravnik state of Israel. But we only have one empirically observed implementation to consider.

This would be perfectly well and good, however I am not Vosem, and thus, I do not agree with his premise. Though in one small way he was right- if this were accurate, the fact that communism has chalked up more failures than Zionism (many to just one) would lend credence to the idea that communism is a worse ideology to support than Zionism. (Note that I am not making this assertion, so you do not have to waste a post responding).

And you are also ignoring the fact that Einstein wasn't a starry-eyed intellectual, he was one of the prime movers behind the Zionist movement. The fact that Mapam, whose ideology would have been most in line Einstein, got the second largest number of seats in the first Knesset, is fairly illuminating.

I am ignoring - because, as I said many times, I do not care. Einstein was great not because anything he did about the State of Israel - nor did he do that much about the State of Israel, except lending it his name.  Then, again, they say Einstein's recommendation letters were pretty useless for job search: he gave too many of those. I would not base myself too much in this case on another recommendation letter.

You are quite missing the point. I asked you to compare Einstein's views on Israel-Palestine and square that with him being an active Zionist (should you decide to ever look into this, which I highly recommend, I would highly suggest looking into the Einstein-Weizmann tour of New York city- fascinating material). Once you get out of this view that all Einstein did was write recommendations, the sooner you will become acquainted with reality.

The point of the post (which I don't think you missed) is that, because of community solidarity in minority communities, bicommunalism the way you define it can be virtually impossible to achieve, and leave you in the unenviable position of supporting very extremist parties because of it. The Republican Party is not a threat to Jews and blacks, even though they largely support its opponents. While there is a lot more bad blood in Israel, Likud is not much of a threat to Israeli Arabs either (who are, in fact, exempt from the draft -- it's probably more of a threat to your typical Israeli Jew).

Being a Jew means being a minority. When they became a majority, they stopped being Jews.

This is an opinion. Can you substantiate it?

That is a matter of my personal self-identification.

You are entitled to think what you want. Those who thinks only Zionists can be Jews are entitled to think what they want. Neither view has any inkling of support outside of pathos. Just something to consider.

[MalaspinaGold]

You are entitled to think what you want. Those who thinks only Zionists can be Jews are entitled to think what they want. Neither view has any inkling of support outside of pathos. Just something to consider.

You are absolutely right. They do not want to have anything to do with me, I do not want to have anything to do with them, so, in fact, we have a perfect coincidence of wants - no trouble whatsoever between me and proper Israeli nationalists. It is those inbetween that we all have a problem with.

In that case I, as a proud member of the in-between vote to kick you all off the communal boat. Problem solved.