Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[mojo pixy]

I suspect many people simply balk at the idea of basing their political theories or policies on a work of fiction.

Actually I like the idea, but there are certainly better books to use. Utopia, say, or The Hitchhikers Guide, or nearly anything by Ian M Banks

 

[ska invita]

Again: you don't need to have a Jewish mother, in order to convert to Judaism. Some Jewish ancestry might help, but it's not essential (and of course, you could just lie)

I do know that...I remember taking an interest in this when Madonna was converting.

 

[ska invita]

Has anyone asked to see the work they've been doing on the two state solution

Does blowing it to smaller pieces count?

 

[mojo pixy]

I do know that...I remember taking an interest in this when Madonna was converting.

So my point (if I have one) is that we can call judaism an 'ethnoreligion' but to many (I'd go as far as to say most) rabbis nowadays, the ethno is considerably less important than the religion.

 

[belboid]

Again: you don't need to have a Jewish mother, in order to convert to Judaism. Some Jewish ancestry might help, but it's not essential (and of course, you could just lie)

but it has to be an acceptable conversion. Various Jewish groups were debarred by the Israeli rabbinical courts from making conversions that counted for Israeli citizenship. In 1999 all the conversions carried out by two Rabbi's were discounted, removing 40,000 from eligibility. It's been a long time since you would be accepted (pretty much) on trust.

 

[andysays]

to say its not true at all is wrong...of course people do convert...not easily though.....i think this is a massive grey area and touches on the contradictions that arise from lack of universalism of being an ethnoreligion

ive got the above perspective from a jewish friend btw. a matriarchal line religion? says it all really

We're going off at a bit of a tangent here, but what exactly does judiaism being primarily a matriarchal line religion say?

Are you of aware of the history of this?

 

[mojo pixy]

but it has to be an acceptable conversion. Various Jewish groups were debarred by the Israeli rabbinical courts from making conversions that counted for Israeli citizenship. In 1999 all the conversions carried out by two Rabbi's were discounted, removing 40,000 from eligibility. It's been a long time since you would be accepted (pretty much) on trust.

There are still plenty of orthodox rabbis who will approve conversions, and tbh conversions by 'reform' rabbis have always been in a bit of a grey area and subject to challenge.

Honestly, apart from observing Jewish rituals and raising your children to do the same, the most important thing that will get conversion approved is being circumcised. (For a man, obviously for a woman this wouldn't be relevant) I suspect the conversions made ineligible were those where circumcision was not performed. Some reform synagogues will still accept 'a drop of blood' instead, but this wouldn't be enough for an orthodox rabbi. Nor for aliyah to Israel iirc - an inspection is performed for that.

 

[ska invita]

We're going off at a bit of a tangent here, but what exactly does judiaism being primarily a matriarchal line religion say?

Are you of aware of the history of this?

matriarchal (or patriarchal) lines are a feature of ethnic heritage not of philosophical outlooks

 

[andysays]

matriarchal (or patriarchal) lines are a feature of ethnic heritage not of philosophical outlooks

That kind of begs the question (perhaps one for another thread) of what we mean by ethnicity.

The idea that it's reducible to bloodlines is just as problematic as the idea that it's reducible to a neat, distinct culture.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That kind of begs the question (perhaps one for another thread) of what we mean by ethnicity.

The idea that it's reducible to bloodlines is just as problematic as the idea that it's reducible to a neat, distinct culture.

As ever, definitions are fuzzy around the edges, but I would have thought that a basic feature of ethnicity is that it isn't something we choose. It has something to do with heritage. What combination of genetics and culture is involved in that heritage, that's all up for grabs and we're unlikely to be consistent about what we mean by it, but a person's ethnicity doesn't spring up spontaneously.

However fuzzy the definition may be, I think ska's point stands, though. There is a mix of issues here. You will have ultra-religious people who won't see a distinction between the ethnic and religious aspects of being Jewish. For everyone else, the waters are kind of muddy. Ultimately, placing an ethnic dimension next to a philosophical dimension inevitably produces contradictions.

 

[PTK]

Rome may not have driven every jew from Judea but Titus did demolish Jerusalem, more than a million Jews died during the siege and the rest were allowed / told to leave. Obviously not all of those left the area but many did, north, east, south and west. There certainly was and is an actual Jewish diaspora, but it's also likely that a lot of people now identifying as Jewish have zero or close to zero genetic heritage from those original diasporites - in part I suppose because of the nature of diaspora itself.

In any case, ethnicity isn't mentioned in the Law of Return. If you sincerely convert to Judaism, you'll have the right to make aliyah and go and live in Israel, your actual family background is essentially irrelevant for the purposes of immigration there. If your mother is Jewish, you are too - but really anyone can convert. Your spouse, children and grandchildren also get the right to go too, if they want.

"Titus did demolish Jerusalem, more than a million Jews died during the siege"
Can you provide a source for this extraordinary claim? The total population of Palestine was about one million in 70 CE.

 

[PTK]

The problem with defining ethnicity by culture is that presented in that



stark way ignores the fact that cultures are both fluid and overlapping.

For example, there are specifically jewish elements of culture which are shared between Jews living in Britain and Jews living in Israel, but there are also differences.

That doesn't in itself tell us much about whether Jewish people constitute a "nation" for the purposes of national self determination.

There are elements in common of all followers of religions. Are Roman Catholics an ethnic group?

 

[PTK]

'Fetishized' is an unpleasant word here; who are you to say that a jew wanting to live in Judea is an unreasonable desire? Given that this country currently exists and gives every jew the right to move there.

And let's ignore the sexual overtones, ugh.

Given that Judea is used a synonym for part of the West Bank, and the West Bank is under illegal occupation, then the desire for someone to become a settler there is unreasonable. It would is also unreasonable for a person from the Republic of Türkiye to settle in North Cyprus on land from which Greek people have been expelled.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think the fact that concepts such as race and ethnicity are inherently fuzzy around the edges, disputed and contested and ultimately somewhat contradictory and inconsistent, is a very good thing. We don't slot neatly into these boxes, and I see no reason why we should.

 

[andysays]

There are elements in common of all followers of religions. Are Roman Catholics an ethnic group?

No, we’re not.

 

[PTK]

In the same way that it's OK for descendants of immigrants to the USA to sing 'from sea to shining sea' while descendants of native americans get penned in to reservations and historically slaughtered for trying to resist.

I suspect this is one reason (aside from islamophobia) why the USA always sides with Israel; they're underpinned by the same idea, a land without people for people without land. Which in both cases is and always was a lie.

Apparently, the Pilgrim Fathers considered themselves to be a chosen people going to a promised land, as did Dutch settlers in South Africa.,

 

[PTK]

As ever, definitions are fuzzy around the edges, but I would have thought that a basic feature of ethnicity is that it isn't something we choose. It has something to do with heritage. What combination of genetics and culture is involved in that heritage, that's all up for grabs and we're unlikely to be consistent about what we mean by it, but a person's ethnicity doesn't spring up spontaneously.

However fuzzy the definition may be, I think ska's point stands, though. There is a mix of issues here. You will have ultra-religious people who won't see a distinction between the ethnic and religious aspects of being Jewish. For everyone else, the waters are kind of muddy. Ultimately, placing an ethnic dimension next to a philosophical dimension inevitably produces contradictions.

Genetics is not involved in ethnicity at all. A baby raised in any ethnic group will grow up to be part of that ethnic group.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

'Fetishized' is an unpleasant word here; who are you to say that a jew wanting to live in Judea is an unreasonable desire? Given that this country currently exists and gives every jew the right to move there.

And let's ignore the sexual overtones, ugh.

Sexual overtones were not intended. I was using the word in the sense of attaching unwarranted, magical importance to something. In this case, origin myths from 2000+ years ago. Jews weren't the only peoples displaced or enslaved during that period. The Neo-Assyrian Empire did this several times, but most of the peoples so-treated have since ceased to be a recognised people. Doesn't mean their descendants aren't still around somewhere.

Judaism is of course not the only religious tradition that does this.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Genetics is not involved in ethnicity at all. A baby raised in any ethnic group will grow up to be part of that ethnic group.

The use of the term ethnicity very often involves some aspect of race that involves heritable phenotypic traits, ie genetics. For example, in the UK census.

 

[Pickman's model]

'Fetishized' is an unpleasant word here; who are you to say that a jew wanting to live in Judea is an unreasonable desire? Given that this country currently exists and gives every jew the right to move there.

And let's ignore the sexual overtones, ugh.

There is no country called judea so while it's possible to want to live there it's no more possible to actually live there than it is to like in the kingdom of jerusalem

 

[mojo pixy]

Given that Judea is used a synonym for part of the West Bank, and the West Bank is under illegal occupation, then the desire for someone to become a settler there is unreasonable. It would is also unreasonable for a person from the Republic of Türkiye to settle in North Cyprus on land from which Greek people have been expelled.

Yes, and another part of historic Judea is not inside that area.

There is no country called judea so while it's possible to want to live there it's no more possible to actually live there than it is to like in the kingdom of jerusalem

Of course, using the name Judea in 2024 is an emotional not geographical expression. I've heard dodgy hippies wax lyrical about Albion, but shamefully never pointed out there's not really any such place.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, and another part of historic Judea is not inside that area.



Of course, using the name Judea in 2024 is an emotional not geographical expression. I've heard dodgy hippies wax lyrical about Albion, but shamefully never pointed out there's not really any such place.

there used to be, up in stokey. until there was some unhappiness with the landlord kicking the fuck out of a punk

 

[Gramsci]

Tbh I'm starting to get a bit of anxiety about where this is going.

I feel like the war in Ukraine has warmed the world up to the idea of conflict with a nuclear armed power which falls short of certain red lines, so I feel like MAD may not be the deterrent it once was.

There are potential flashpoints that would amount to WW3 if they all occurred simultaneously.

First is the possibility of the US going to war with Iran, sparking a larger regional conflict. Trump victory could make this plausible as the religious nutters will be in power.

Second is the possibility of Russia calling what it might believe to be the bluff of NATO article 5 and attempting a blitzkrieg of the Baltics. If Trump wins and cuts aid to Ukraine and pulls out or at least expresses disinterest in NATO, this is quite plausible. If US is tied up with Iran this also becomes more likely. IMO some European countries would call the bluff and directly fight Russia in the Baltics.

Third is the big one which is Taiwan, if the first 2 events happen then China might see it is now or never. I reckon a conflict against the US navy in the Pacific which falls short of non-cyber attacks on US territory could happen on the understanding that it is limited in scope to a naval and air conflict so no MAD deterrence. This would likely also pull in Japan and ignite the Korean peninsula with the possibility of spreading to SE Asian if Vietnam and Philippines try to seize the moment to get China out of their coastal waters.

All combined that would be worthy of the name WW3 and it all feels dangerously plausible to me.

Not wanting to have a go here but this is example of Eurocentric point of view.

For many WW2 did not end in 1945. The new human rights post 1945 did not apply to colonial people. So across the world fighting did not stop. Malaysia / Indonesia / Vietnam.

To avoid it being under the new human rights post WW2 wars were labelled for example in Malaysia " The Malaysian Emergency". ie policing actions rather than wars which might come under the new post war human rights.

The Mau Mau rebellion is another example

MAD was not about stopping wars. It was about European/ Russia / US not destroying each other. Proxy wars were fought.

Palestine/ Israel is a case in point. With demise of Ottoman Empire post WW1 the Palestinian Arabs found self determination was not for them. The Balfour declaration saw to that.

Rashid Khalidi ( very good) history of this is called The Hundred Years War on Palestine

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781627798556/thehundredyearswaronpalestine

The title and book shows war on colonial peoples has been going on and on. Occupation by British and the Mandate ended up as a disaster for Palestinians.

Im afraid when I hear people going on about fear of WW3 its about that coming to Europe and US. And affecting their populations.

Wars have never ended for some peoples outside the privileged US/ Europe and USSR.

 

[Pickman's model]

Tbh I'm starting to get a bit of anxiety about where this is going.

I feel like the war in Ukraine has warmed the world up to the idea of conflict with a nuclear armed power which falls short of certain red lines, so I feel like MAD may not be the deterrent it once was.

There are potential flashpoints that would amount to WW3 if they all occurred simultaneously.

First is the possibility of the US going to war with Iran, sparking a larger regional conflict. Trump victory could make this plausible as the religious nutters will be in power.

Second is the possibility of Russia calling what it might believe to be the bluff of NATO article 5 and attempting a blitzkrieg of the Baltics. If Trump wins and cuts aid to Ukraine and pulls out or at least expresses disinterest in NATO, this is quite plausible. If US is tied up with Iran this also becomes more likely. IMO some European countries would call the bluff and directly fight Russia in the Baltics.

Third is the big one which is Taiwan, if the first 2 events happen then China might see it is now or never. I reckon a conflict against the US navy in the Pacific which falls short of non-cyber attacks on US territory could happen on the understanding that it is limited in scope to a naval and air conflict so no MAD deterrence. This would likely also pull in Japan and ignite the Korean peninsula with the possibility of spreading to SE Asian if Vietnam and Philippines try to seize the moment to get China out of their coastal waters.

All combined that would be worthy of the name WW3 and it all feels dangerously plausible to me.

I don't think a Russian blitzkrieg is really on the cards

 

[PTK]

Yes, and another part of historic Judea is not inside that area.



Of course, using the name Judea in 2024 is an emotional not geographical expression. I've heard dodgy hippies wax lyrical about Albion, but shamefully never pointed out there's not really any such place.

Which part of Judea is outside the West Bank? The Israeli government and right-wing Zionists refer to the West Bank as Samaria and Judea, but I can find no reference anywhere to a part of the territory of the State of Israel being a part of Judea.

 

[PTK]

Not wanting to have a go here but this is example of Eurocentric point of view.

For many WW2 did not end in 1945. The new human rights post 1945 did not apply to colonial people. So across the world fighting did not stop. Malaysia / Indonesia / Vietnam.

To avoid it being under the new human rights post WW2 wars were labelled for example in Malaysia " The Malaysian Emergency". ie policing actions rather than wars which might come under the new post war human rights.

The Mau Mau rebellion is another example

MAD was not about stopping wars. It was about European/ Russia / US not destroying each other. Proxy wars were fought.

Palestine/ Israel is a case in point. With demise of Ottoman Empire post WW1 the Palestinian Arabs found self determination was not for them. The Balfour declaration saw to that.

Rashid Khalidi ( very good) history of this is called The Hundred Years War on Palestine

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781627798556/thehundredyearswaronpalestine

The title and book shows war on colonial peoples has been going on and on. Occupation by British and the Mandate ended up as a disaster for Palestinians.

Im afraid when I hear people going on about fear of WW3 its about that coming to Europe and US. And affecting their populations.

Wars have never ended for some peoples outside the privileged US/ Europe and USSR.

Then there was the Greek Civil War, of course.

 

[weltweit]

Gaza (like Ukraine) seems to have fallen off the mainstream news media's agenda. I have heard a few bulletins now with no mentions at all.

I suppose it is to be expected.

 

[mojo pixy]

Which part of Judea is outside the West Bank? The Israeli government and right-wing Zionists refer to the West Bank as Samaria and Judea, but I can find no reference anywhere to a part of the territory of the State of Israel being a part of Judea.

As far as I recall, 'Judea' extended fully from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, and it incorporated eg. Jaffa, Acre and Nazareth which are all towns fully inside modern Israel. And Jerusalem, which partly is.

 

[PTK]

As far as I recall, 'Judea' extended fully from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, and it incorporated eg. Jaffa, Acre and Nazareth which are all towns fully inside modern Israel. And Jerusalem, which partly is.

I thought that Judea was the southern kingdom, and that Jaffa would have been in the ancient kingdom of Israel.

 

[mojo pixy]

I thought that Judea was the southern kingdom, and that Jaffa would have been in the ancient kingdom of Israel.

If we're talking about the ancient Kingdom of Israel (rather than the Roman province of Judea**), then that extended from east of the Jordan all the way to the Mediterranean, and from Jerusalem and Jericho north to at least the Sea of Galilee.

I'm going on memory tbh but I'm sure Wikipedia will more or less bear me out.

** OK to clarify, I have bothered to check and there was the full Roman province of Judaea, which was massive, and the 'Herodian Kingdom of Judaea', a client state of Rome which Rome ultimately overtook entirely, which was much smaller but still comprised most of the still older Kingdom of Israel. That's what I've been talking about, Herodian Judaea which was essentially the last time those lands were governed by Jews, and whence the original diaspora sprang.

Phew.