Fun fact for tonight's debate: The spouse of one of the moderators in tonight's CNN debate, Dana Bash, was one of the 51 former intelligence officials who signed the letter suggesting that the Hunter Biden laptop was likely Russian disinformation. Dana Bash is married to Jeremy Bash, who served as chief of staff at the CIA and the Department of Defense and was one of the signatories of the letter.
Great read, but i feel like you cut the haredi too much slack. Their leadership is way too self-centered and is not really looking for a solution for the “sugiayt gius” and more importantly - the lack of education of the general haredi population makes them too susceptible to government cuts.
I mean if you are crying about how you are going to turn the army haredi if the try to enlist you - there may be sometime where you will to carry out your threat.
I agree that they tried to stay as apolitical as possible (without hurting their own interest) . But the hevrat lomdim turned into something unsustainable - and even the inflow of money from US can’t save it
“The scope and length of the GWOT wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere ensured hundreds of thousands of young AMERICAN men got plenty of time and opportunity to experience the bankruptcy of their establishment at close range. This is leading to the establishment delegitimization among precisely the segments of society which historically create revolutions and regime change. “
I don't think it's comparable. GWOT was not a war for the survival of the US and not fought by called up reservists. Even Vietnam didn't involve a big callup.
Haredim are political quietists? They vote en masse and en bloc. They wring the seats they obtain for all they're worth, with the singleminded goal of furthering narrow sectarian objectives. This is all good and well, of course, but it's hardly politically unassertive. And for the Haredim that don't vote, it's davka because they won't touch the state with a 10-foot stick, and not because they are "go with the flow" types.
As Israel's "most naturally right wing sector," it's quite strange that the only Haredi non-negotiables are to keep their people (1) out of the military and (2) on the dole. These aren't exactly classical nationalist or conservative goals. And if the left upsets the status quo, the Haredim would simply redouble their efforts to obtain (1) and (2), if need be by capitulating to the left on other issues.
You start off by claiming that Haredim are not political quietists, then proceed to explain that they vote en bloc to achieve very narrow and limited apolitical objectives, then explain that their response to the Left making that no longer possible will be to do more of it.
I did not say their objectives are apolitical, and I recommend you not insert the word where it doesn't belong. Wholesale military exemptions and welfare entitlements for Haredim are felt (right or wrong) as a political grievance by a large swathe of the Israeli public. This is well-known; I didn't think it needed spelling out.
And yes, it's logical that if Haredi prime objectives (1) and (2) are threatened by the Left, then Haredim will simply increase their horse-trading efforts to obtain (1) and (2). Whereas your position is apparently that Haredim will instead start pursuing lower-order goals (3), (4), (5) etc.
It's tautological to say that any means you seek to achieve by political ends are political. The Haredim have, to date, not sought to influence any policies which don't affect them in the most narrow sense.
This is not because they don't have political opinions on eg pride parades and collaboration with the PA and Hamas, but because that stance was part of the deal.
The Haredi core goals are manifestly political, not because of a tautology, but because other Israeli political constituencies vociferously oppose those goals. (This is quite besides the fact that welfare entitlements and draft exemptions directly regard Israel's distribution of rights and obligations amongst its citizens, and are therefore inherently political for that reason alone.)
One can insist that one's preferences are apolitical and don't affect others. But unfortunately, when pursuit of those preferences gives rise to intense political opposition, a political issue is present nonetheless.
Put differently, whether one's goal is apolitical is not a mere matter of self-definition. Nor does it hinge on whether others are or are not affected. It's commonplace that people will deploy political power regarding issues that don't personally affect them in the slightest.
The neat thing about Haredim, is that they can actually have leaders.
For now they are politically on standby mode, but if a leader with any ambition and foresight shows up, they can easily channel all that into effective politics.
Absolutely true, but you're presupposing that Haredim are not already practicing effective politics. How so? They turn out in force to vote collectively, and they pursue their political objectives in a disciplined manner.
If you're suggesting that new leadership might successfully aim them at new objectives, then you're of course correct. But I doubt that's on the immediate horizon. As of today, the Haredi North Star remains draft exemptions and welfare entitlements. When necessary, Haredim have sat on left-wing coalitions to safeguard these.
Respectfully, I can't agree with your definition of "effective politics," particularly when the status quo is under sustained assault. Maintaining a disputed status quo can be an extremely weighty political objective. It certainly is for the Haredim.
It seems that R" Kahane's predictions regarding the Israeli left were unfortunately proven correct; as their Jewish support bases have continued to crumble they've begun the process of forming a political alliance with the Arabist camp. Even a few years ago it feels like Labour MK's wouldn't be caught dead with Cassif or Odeh. They're getting desperate, and honestly I'm anxious to see where that desperation will lead them. I know we've been immersed in a "cold" civil war since 2019-ish, but do you think we could see them openly declare for the 'international community' against the Israeli right in the next few years? The Quislingsteins like Gideon Levy or Pappe of-course already have, but I've never seen an endorsement of such radical figures from the mainstream left, at-least not in my lifetime.
"In my own right wing racist corner of the Twittersphere, I’ve watched a young American of Palestinian descent and Bronze Age persuasion, Abdullah Yosef, go from extolling the Gazans as the harbingers of the rising barbarian Nietzschean ubermensch to denouncing the majority of the Ummah as “Islamicate biomass”, “hundreds of millions of useless people” whose utterly unproductive lives would be best ended in the mines. The responses of his fellow Muslims range from sympathetic agreement to “you’re biomass just like we are, brother.” The general mood among Muslims is turning to despair and self-disgust."
This seems more likely a parallel response to what happened in the Jewish world. There was a surge in achdus (real or imagined) in the immediate aftermath. 8 months later Israeli society is tearing itself apart again. In other words, not much has actually changed.
"Since history moves dialectically, every thing brings its antithesis into being."
Not sure what this Hegelian Gobbledygook is supposed to mean.
"This war is existential; defeat means another, much larger October 7th massacre is inevitable."
This is generally true of wars fought by Israel. Defeat means ending up floating in the Mediterranean. Again, nothing new.
"Hamas was elected in Gaza with overwhelming popular support because it convincingly presented itself as the organization most committed to and capable of exterminating and expelling the Jews."
"Israel’s troops were vastly outnumbered on both fronts, and woefully underprepared. But after three days of intense fighting, the Egyptian offensive ground to a stalemate, and in the Golan, the Israelis were able to drive Syria back and then counterattack, pushing deep enough into Syrian territory that the IDF could shell the outskirts of the capital, Damascus. Eventually, the Israeli army also came within 60 miles of the Egyptian capital, Cairo"
"I'm not seeing previously right wing Jewish intellectuals decrying the majority of Jews as unproductive trash."
You didn't say anything about intellectuals. You mentioned people on twitter.
[EDIT- I see you did actually mention "what passes for intellectuals in the Muslim world,". My bad. I still don't think your general point is valid. But I'd need to know more to say for sure.]
"Which part confuses you?"
The whole thing. It's high-falutin gibberish.
"You're right, the new generation of Gazans rejects the warmongering stance of Hamas and loves Jews."
You made a claim about how Hamas won an election. That claim was unsupported, and probably false. I pointed that out. You're now snickering in response, but not actually demonstrating you know what you're talking about.
Hamas won an election. Everyone knows what Hamas stands for: killing Jews until the Land of Israel has been reclaimed. It's not some vast leap of logic to infer that the majority of the population support this goal. The only opposition to Hamas in Gaza is Islamic Jihad. You will be shocked to find out what their stance on the Jews and the Land is!
Which part of the Hegelian idea that political phenomena bring their opposites into existence do you find confusing?
1956 and 1973 were not existential; the Egyptian army pursued strictly limited objectives, as did the Syrians. All the more so the 1981 Lebanon war and subsequent conflicts.
The six day war is not 1973. And the fact that some Israeli leaders panicked doesn't change the facts-Syrians were fighting to get the Golan back, the Egyptians wanted the Western Sinai. Not existential.
"It's not some vast leap of logic to infer that the majority of the population support this goal."
You're dodging the point. You made a claim about an election held 20 years ago. You're now opining about what the current population of Gaza thinks based on some other stuff. As it happens, I tend to agree with that latter assessment. I wanted to know if you had anything to back up your original claim. Apparently you don't. Which is fine- just say so. No need to obfuscate.
"Which part of the Hegelian idea that political phenomena bring their opposites into existence do you find confusing?"
The idea makes no sense. It's lofty sounding, but not connected to reality. Events happen for a variety of reasons. Then other events happen for a variety of reasons. Sometimes later events are the opposite of earlier events, sometimes not. E.G. The American revolution didn't bring its opposite into existence. The founding of the state of Israel didn't bring its opposite into existence. Most things aren't followed by their opposites. That's not how things actually work.
I pointed out that Hamas has, from the beginning, been about killing Jews and reclaiming the Land. That's what they were about when founded, that's what they're about today, that's what they were about when elected, and the Gazans knew it. You want to "ackshully" that with some exit polls, go for it, IDC, LOL.
Yes, the American revolution, whose nominal aims was freedom, brought its opposite into existence, as can be understood from the causes of the Whiskey and Shay's Rebellions and eventually the Civil War. Israel was created in order to free the galut Jew from his alienated existence by bringing him closer to the Land, with the result that your average Israeli lives in a mortgaged concrete cuckbox in Holon or Afula, shuffling papers for a living and eating produce grown by Thai laborers. It's a pretty obvious phenomenon.
"the American revolution, whose nominal aims was freedom, brought its opposite into existence, as can be understood from the causes of the Whiskey and Shay's Rebellions and eventually the Civil War."
"Israel was created in order to free the galut Jew from his alienated existence by bringing him closer to the Land,"
Israel was created to be a homeland for Jews. https://main.knesset.gov.il/about/occasion/pages/declaration.aspx Which it more or less is, however imperfect. Israeli living conditions and Thai workers are irrelevant to that. They certainly aren't the opposite of it.
Baruch is one of the greatest thinkers of our time, Jewish or otherwise, and an heir to the genius writing of David P Goldman AKA "Spengler"
Great post, Baruch. One of your best.
Fun fact for tonight's debate: The spouse of one of the moderators in tonight's CNN debate, Dana Bash, was one of the 51 former intelligence officials who signed the letter suggesting that the Hunter Biden laptop was likely Russian disinformation. Dana Bash is married to Jeremy Bash, who served as chief of staff at the CIA and the Department of Defense and was one of the signatories of the letter.
Thank you.
Great read, but i feel like you cut the haredi too much slack. Their leadership is way too self-centered and is not really looking for a solution for the “sugiayt gius” and more importantly - the lack of education of the general haredi population makes them too susceptible to government cuts.
I mean if you are crying about how you are going to turn the army haredi if the try to enlist you - there may be sometime where you will to carry out your threat.
I agree that they tried to stay as apolitical as possible (without hurting their own interest) . But the hevrat lomdim turned into something unsustainable - and even the inflow of money from US can’t save it
Of all the sectors of Israeli society, I've found the Haredim to have the highest fraction of intellectually curious and open-minded people (10-15%).
The fact that they have leadership of any kind already makes them stand out.
TYPOS. FIXED EM.
“The scope and length of the GWOT wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere ensured hundreds of thousands of young AMERICAN men got plenty of time and opportunity to experience the bankruptcy of their establishment at close range. This is leading to the establishment delegitimization among precisely the segments of society which historically create revolutions and regime change. “
I don't think it's comparable. GWOT was not a war for the survival of the US and not fought by called up reservists. Even Vietnam didn't involve a big callup.
And yet the same phenomenon.
As it happens the actual existential war is upon Americans and we can at last name the enemy… ourselves.
These things happen.
https://youtu.be/pZC4nCrQWB0?si=LVVBcuHy0Qv2wEZo
No, because America is having an election 😂😂🤣🤣
You’re about to have an escape window.
Take it.
Or perish for being clever silly, you know exactly what I mean.
Good luck 🍀
Haredim are political quietists? They vote en masse and en bloc. They wring the seats they obtain for all they're worth, with the singleminded goal of furthering narrow sectarian objectives. This is all good and well, of course, but it's hardly politically unassertive. And for the Haredim that don't vote, it's davka because they won't touch the state with a 10-foot stick, and not because they are "go with the flow" types.
As Israel's "most naturally right wing sector," it's quite strange that the only Haredi non-negotiables are to keep their people (1) out of the military and (2) on the dole. These aren't exactly classical nationalist or conservative goals. And if the left upsets the status quo, the Haredim would simply redouble their efforts to obtain (1) and (2), if need be by capitulating to the left on other issues.
You start off by claiming that Haredim are not political quietists, then proceed to explain that they vote en bloc to achieve very narrow and limited apolitical objectives, then explain that their response to the Left making that no longer possible will be to do more of it.
Are you ChatGPT?
I did not say their objectives are apolitical, and I recommend you not insert the word where it doesn't belong. Wholesale military exemptions and welfare entitlements for Haredim are felt (right or wrong) as a political grievance by a large swathe of the Israeli public. This is well-known; I didn't think it needed spelling out.
And yes, it's logical that if Haredi prime objectives (1) and (2) are threatened by the Left, then Haredim will simply increase their horse-trading efforts to obtain (1) and (2). Whereas your position is apparently that Haredim will instead start pursuing lower-order goals (3), (4), (5) etc.
It's tautological to say that any means you seek to achieve by political ends are political. The Haredim have, to date, not sought to influence any policies which don't affect them in the most narrow sense.
This is not because they don't have political opinions on eg pride parades and collaboration with the PA and Hamas, but because that stance was part of the deal.
Now the deal has been broken unilaterally.
The Haredi core goals are manifestly political, not because of a tautology, but because other Israeli political constituencies vociferously oppose those goals. (This is quite besides the fact that welfare entitlements and draft exemptions directly regard Israel's distribution of rights and obligations amongst its citizens, and are therefore inherently political for that reason alone.)
One can insist that one's preferences are apolitical and don't affect others. But unfortunately, when pursuit of those preferences gives rise to intense political opposition, a political issue is present nonetheless.
Put differently, whether one's goal is apolitical is not a mere matter of self-definition. Nor does it hinge on whether others are or are not affected. It's commonplace that people will deploy political power regarding issues that don't personally affect them in the slightest.
The neat thing about Haredim, is that they can actually have leaders.
For now they are politically on standby mode, but if a leader with any ambition and foresight shows up, they can easily channel all that into effective politics.
Absolutely true, but you're presupposing that Haredim are not already practicing effective politics. How so? They turn out in force to vote collectively, and they pursue their political objectives in a disciplined manner.
If you're suggesting that new leadership might successfully aim them at new objectives, then you're of course correct. But I doubt that's on the immediate horizon. As of today, the Haredi North Star remains draft exemptions and welfare entitlements. When necessary, Haredim have sat on left-wing coalitions to safeguard these.
I agree. In my mind effective politics includes having objectives beyond the status quo.
Respectfully, I can't agree with your definition of "effective politics," particularly when the status quo is under sustained assault. Maintaining a disputed status quo can be an extremely weighty political objective. It certainly is for the Haredim.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/at-tel-aviv-confab-israels-embattled-peace-camp-seeks-to-revive-itself-post-oct-7/
It seems that R" Kahane's predictions regarding the Israeli left were unfortunately proven correct; as their Jewish support bases have continued to crumble they've begun the process of forming a political alliance with the Arabist camp. Even a few years ago it feels like Labour MK's wouldn't be caught dead with Cassif or Odeh. They're getting desperate, and honestly I'm anxious to see where that desperation will lead them. I know we've been immersed in a "cold" civil war since 2019-ish, but do you think we could see them openly declare for the 'international community' against the Israeli right in the next few years? The Quislingsteins like Gideon Levy or Pappe of-course already have, but I've never seen an endorsement of such radical figures from the mainstream left, at-least not in my lifetime.
Very perceptive.
Maybe too much truth here. Ssshhhh. Loose lips. But thanks. It makes a lot of sense.
And here i am!
"In my own right wing racist corner of the Twittersphere, I’ve watched a young American of Palestinian descent and Bronze Age persuasion, Abdullah Yosef, go from extolling the Gazans as the harbingers of the rising barbarian Nietzschean ubermensch to denouncing the majority of the Ummah as “Islamicate biomass”, “hundreds of millions of useless people” whose utterly unproductive lives would be best ended in the mines. The responses of his fellow Muslims range from sympathetic agreement to “you’re biomass just like we are, brother.” The general mood among Muslims is turning to despair and self-disgust."
This seems more likely a parallel response to what happened in the Jewish world. There was a surge in achdus (real or imagined) in the immediate aftermath. 8 months later Israeli society is tearing itself apart again. In other words, not much has actually changed.
"Since history moves dialectically, every thing brings its antithesis into being."
Not sure what this Hegelian Gobbledygook is supposed to mean.
"This war is existential; defeat means another, much larger October 7th massacre is inevitable."
This is generally true of wars fought by Israel. Defeat means ending up floating in the Mediterranean. Again, nothing new.
"Hamas was elected in Gaza with overwhelming popular support because it convincingly presented itself as the organization most committed to and capable of exterminating and expelling the Jews."
It was elected before many Gazans were even born. Also, do you have a source for what motivated the electorate? At least per Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Palestinian_legislative_election#Exit_polls it wasn't a vote for destroying Israel.
>This seems more likely a parallel response to what happened in the Jewish world.
I'm not seeing previously right wing Jewish intellectuals decrying the majority of Jews as unproductive trash.
>Not sure what this Hegelian Gobbledygook is supposed to mean
Which part confuses you?
>This is generally true of wars fought by Israel.
Not since 1948.
>It was elected before many Gazans were even born.
You're right, the new generation of Gazans rejects the warmongering stance of Hamas and loves Jews.
">This is generally true of wars fought by Israel.
Not since 1948."
1967 was a much bigger rout than 1948 was. As was 1973, once the Israelis overcame their disastrous beginning. You could look it up.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/01/the-next-days-were-hell-how-the-yom-kippur-war-realigned-the-middle-east
"Israel’s troops were vastly outnumbered on both fronts, and woefully underprepared. But after three days of intense fighting, the Egyptian offensive ground to a stalemate, and in the Golan, the Israelis were able to drive Syria back and then counterattack, pushing deep enough into Syrian territory that the IDF could shell the outskirts of the capital, Damascus. Eventually, the Israeli army also came within 60 miles of the Egyptian capital, Cairo"
"I'm not seeing previously right wing Jewish intellectuals decrying the majority of Jews as unproductive trash."
You didn't say anything about intellectuals. You mentioned people on twitter.
[EDIT- I see you did actually mention "what passes for intellectuals in the Muslim world,". My bad. I still don't think your general point is valid. But I'd need to know more to say for sure.]
"Which part confuses you?"
The whole thing. It's high-falutin gibberish.
"You're right, the new generation of Gazans rejects the warmongering stance of Hamas and loves Jews."
You made a claim about how Hamas won an election. That claim was unsupported, and probably false. I pointed that out. You're now snickering in response, but not actually demonstrating you know what you're talking about.
Hamas won an election. Everyone knows what Hamas stands for: killing Jews until the Land of Israel has been reclaimed. It's not some vast leap of logic to infer that the majority of the population support this goal. The only opposition to Hamas in Gaza is Islamic Jihad. You will be shocked to find out what their stance on the Jews and the Land is!
Which part of the Hegelian idea that political phenomena bring their opposites into existence do you find confusing?
1956 and 1973 were not existential; the Egyptian army pursued strictly limited objectives, as did the Syrians. All the more so the 1981 Lebanon war and subsequent conflicts.
"1956 [sic] and 1973 were not existential;."
Are you for real? There were mass graves dug in Israel ahead of the 6 day war. https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-745705 And the Israelis literally thought about dropping a nuke in 1973 https://www.ynetnews.com/magazine/article/hygssvgy6 because of how dire things looked.
You might want to learn some basic historical facts before weighing in with grand meta-historical uber-theories about what it all means. Just saying.
The six day war is not 1973. And the fact that some Israeli leaders panicked doesn't change the facts-Syrians were fighting to get the Golan back, the Egyptians wanted the Western Sinai. Not existential.
"It's not some vast leap of logic to infer that the majority of the population support this goal."
You're dodging the point. You made a claim about an election held 20 years ago. You're now opining about what the current population of Gaza thinks based on some other stuff. As it happens, I tend to agree with that latter assessment. I wanted to know if you had anything to back up your original claim. Apparently you don't. Which is fine- just say so. No need to obfuscate.
"Which part of the Hegelian idea that political phenomena bring their opposites into existence do you find confusing?"
The idea makes no sense. It's lofty sounding, but not connected to reality. Events happen for a variety of reasons. Then other events happen for a variety of reasons. Sometimes later events are the opposite of earlier events, sometimes not. E.G. The American revolution didn't bring its opposite into existence. The founding of the state of Israel didn't bring its opposite into existence. Most things aren't followed by their opposites. That's not how things actually work.
I pointed out that Hamas has, from the beginning, been about killing Jews and reclaiming the Land. That's what they were about when founded, that's what they're about today, that's what they were about when elected, and the Gazans knew it. You want to "ackshully" that with some exit polls, go for it, IDC, LOL.
Yes, the American revolution, whose nominal aims was freedom, brought its opposite into existence, as can be understood from the causes of the Whiskey and Shay's Rebellions and eventually the Civil War. Israel was created in order to free the galut Jew from his alienated existence by bringing him closer to the Land, with the result that your average Israeli lives in a mortgaged concrete cuckbox in Holon or Afula, shuffling papers for a living and eating produce grown by Thai laborers. It's a pretty obvious phenomenon.
"the American revolution, whose nominal aims was freedom, brought its opposite into existence, as can be understood from the causes of the Whiskey and Shay's Rebellions and eventually the Civil War."
It's nominal aim was independence from England and tyranny by a foreign power. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript Which it achieved.
"Israel was created in order to free the galut Jew from his alienated existence by bringing him closer to the Land,"
Israel was created to be a homeland for Jews. https://main.knesset.gov.il/about/occasion/pages/declaration.aspx Which it more or less is, however imperfect. Israeli living conditions and Thai workers are irrelevant to that. They certainly aren't the opposite of it.