3 ms·

>As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts I can't say how many Israelis or American Jews think this way, but there is a log

>As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts I can't say how many Israelis or American Jews think this way, but there is a logical/practical justification of Zionism that has nothing to do with religion or nebulous ethnic hatreds, which I think I've heard people claim (rightly or wrongly) didn't exist much before 1948 anyway. The justification is, that anyone who has enough Jewish ancestry to have been targeted by the Nazis, can never be secure in any place other than Israel. That if Jews can exist at all, they must have at least as much right to exist there as anywhere else, and historically it's proven cannot defend as well anywhere else but a homeland they believe in. I doubt this myself, that everyone who could've been exterminated in WWII is best off in Israel. But it seems like a western, developed country, type of rationalization that impedes how you frame things. I'm not knowledgeable and haven't researched it, but my impression is at some point the definition of a Jew who has the right to return to Israel was changed to the Nazi definition of a Jew, on ethical grounds, and that would seem to imply a secular, utilitarian outlook not a religio/ethnic one that outsiders should be bewildered by. I don't think this is too complicated, until the dispossessed are brought into it. Again, I like the word "anachronistic". I have the impression that much like people project the US-Israel being allies too far back, they also project the Israel/Palestine conflict too far back. People say that many conflicts in Africa are not ancient either, but constructed during colonialism.

kfprt 5y ago
While I'm sure your religious politics are fascinating they are completely irrelevant to US policy as it relates to the USS Liberty incident. The US has nothing to gain by involving ourselves in that quagmire. As a politically exercise I am completely uninterested in such issues. US foreign policy should be blind to them. If Jews want to advocate for the existence of Israel that is fine by me, but they must not do it under an American flag. It is not patriotic to support another country over ones one. I am also disappointed that you do not share the presumption of good faith.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >your religious politics I think I clearly stated a non-religious rationale for Israel that I also said I am not convinced of. How can I interpret the above phrase as if in good faith? Whose politics? What religion? I am not baptized, nor have I taken communion or had a bar mitzvah or anything else similar. You sound like someone who doesn't understand American politics, and I was trying to help. Treating this sort of comment as a threat is counterproductive. It's highly relevant to your stated goal of changing US policy to understand the biases and outlook of Americans. Tactically, you must understand that everything is framed in terms of the right to exist, for a secular audience, not a religious or ethnic appeal. That applies to the Liberty, too. I guess there's the pro-Israel Christian right, but you can't expect to find them on HN listening to you. If you don't want to know the truth about your obstacles, you don't believe in your own goal.
  - kfprt 5y ago
    I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone could argue that the existence of Israel doesn't involve religion. American politics or foreign policy? I don't see the threat, do enlighten me. >If you don't want to know the truth about your obstacles, you don't believe in your own goal. I am aware of my limitations, I do not have dictatorial powers. What I have said here is merely what I see as the correct solution to US foreign policy. I have no grand designs nor plans to somehow convince the rest of the country of my correctness. I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself. I do believe however that one can have convictions absent direct implementable practicality.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      >I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone could argue that the existence of Israel doesn't involve religion That is not a claim I am making. Whether an affinity for Israel has religious roots depends on the person. There are a lot of secular Americans, and Israelis, who believe in a case for Israel that is not religious. So I assert. I did not endorse the logic; I personally think that other groups survive without a country, like say the Kurds, and I am not sure it's necessary for Israel to exist, much less in its present state. But to oppose Israel, I think understanding who you are trying to convince, of what, is vital. I don't see how you can not understand it, since surely appealing to secular Americans is why you would be commenting on a place like HN? >I don't see the threat, do enlighten me. My comment was explaining a way non-religious people justify Israel. It appeared to me that you thought I was threatening you in some way, hence ignoring it and calling me religious. I think it's a historical fact that non-religious factors, ie the Holocaust, were pivotal in making a case for Israel to both Jews and non-Jews, and secular non-Jewish American support for Israel today can't be discounted. I inferred you agree with me based on your comment about the Hutu and the Tutsi. It implies to me your preferred audience is secular Americans without religious motivation, who don't sympathize with far off ethnic/religious conflicts. I think this is the correct group of people to try to convince, tactically. I don't believe top people in the military-industrial complex are highly religious. I may be completely off base, but reading the news about, for instance, Mark Milley, it confirmed my assumptions that they believe in a secular creed, understanding their enemies, and stuff like that. But also not isolationism.

kfprt 5y ago

While I'm sure your religious politics are fascinating they are completely irrelevant to US policy as it relates to the USS Liberty incident. The US has nothing to gain by involving ourselves in that quagmire. As a politically exercise I am completely uninterested in such issues. US foreign policy should be blind to them. If Jews want to advocate for the existence of Israel that is fine by me, but they must not do it under an American flag. It is not patriotic to support another country over ones one. I am also disappointed that you do not share the presumption of good faith.

perl4ever 5y ago
>your religious politics I think I clearly stated a non-religious rationale for Israel that I also said I am not convinced of. How can I interpret the above phrase as if in good faith? Whose politics? What religion? I am not baptized, nor have I taken communion or had a bar mitzvah or anything else similar. You sound like someone who doesn't understand American politics, and I was trying to help. Treating this sort of comment as a threat is counterproductive. It's highly relevant to your stated goal of changing US policy to understand the biases and outlook of Americans. Tactically, you must understand that everything is framed in terms of the right to exist, for a secular audience, not a religious or ethnic appeal. That applies to the Liberty, too. I guess there's the pro-Israel Christian right, but you can't expect to find them on HN listening to you. If you don't want to know the truth about your obstacles, you don't believe in your own goal.
- kfprt 5y ago
  I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone could argue that the existence of Israel doesn't involve religion. American politics or foreign policy? I don't see the threat, do enlighten me. >If you don't want to know the truth about your obstacles, you don't believe in your own goal. I am aware of my limitations, I do not have dictatorial powers. What I have said here is merely what I see as the correct solution to US foreign policy. I have no grand designs nor plans to somehow convince the rest of the country of my correctness. I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself. I do believe however that one can have convictions absent direct implementable practicality.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone could argue that the existence of Israel doesn't involve religion That is not a claim I am making. Whether an affinity for Israel has religious roots depends on the person. There are a lot of secular Americans, and Israelis, who believe in a case for Israel that is not religious. So I assert. I did not endorse the logic; I personally think that other groups survive without a country, like say the Kurds, and I am not sure it's necessary for Israel to exist, much less in its present state. But to oppose Israel, I think understanding who you are trying to convince, of what, is vital. I don't see how you can not understand it, since surely appealing to secular Americans is why you would be commenting on a place like HN? >I don't see the threat, do enlighten me. My comment was explaining a way non-religious people justify Israel. It appeared to me that you thought I was threatening you in some way, hence ignoring it and calling me religious. I think it's a historical fact that non-religious factors, ie the Holocaust, were pivotal in making a case for Israel to both Jews and non-Jews, and secular non-Jewish American support for Israel today can't be discounted. I inferred you agree with me based on your comment about the Hutu and the Tutsi. It implies to me your preferred audience is secular Americans without religious motivation, who don't sympathize with far off ethnic/religious conflicts. I think this is the correct group of people to try to convince, tactically. I don't believe top people in the military-industrial complex are highly religious. I may be completely off base, but reading the news about, for instance, Mark Milley, it confirmed my assumptions that they believe in a secular creed, understanding their enemies, and stuff like that. But also not isolationism.