The meaningless and the weak

“If it is just to prohibit a Jew from living in Samaria, is it also just to prohibit a black from living in Washington DC?” – Moshe Feiglin

I strongly, very strongly disagree with Moshe Feiglin on many points of his political platform. He’s a manipulator: he presents himself as “loyal to the principles of Likud”, but his own platform actually contradicts that of Likud. It doesn’t mean that i, heaven forfend, support Likud; it just means that Feiglin is a bit of a trickster. Not a liar, just a trickster: Many of his platform’s points are very religious and fundamentalist, but he only publishes them on his own website and not in the articles that he writes for Maariv.

But i strongly, very strongly agree with the point above.

“Stopping natural growth” of the Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria is, beyond being nonsensical, violent and racist.

But you know what? Barack Obama is himself a trickster. Worse, yet – he’s a puppet and the people behind him are tricksters. Obama is too good at pleasing crowds. He pleased the crowd in Prague saying that he wants to end nuclear weapons. I support that, but i don’t really believe that he means that. Obama tells a crowd of Jews that Jerusalem will stay undivided, but then a campaign adviser had to clarify, that is muddle it.

A campaign adviser.

At least Moshe Feiglin doesn’t seem to have campaign advisers.

14 Responses to “The meaningless and the weak”


  1. 1 LB 2009-06-07 at 23:53

    “Moshe Feiglin… presents himself as “loyal to the principles of Likud”, but his own platform actually contradicts that of Likud.”

    In another life, I was in a hesder yeshiva for a year in a “radical settlement” that has a very active discussion board. This year happened to be the same one in which Moshe Feiglin started his Likud campaign. But there was literally a discussion board – in the days before ubiquitous wifi and before blogs became commonplace, there was a large bulletin board by the dining hall, and people would post opinions, and would get responses – on paper, back and forth on an actual board. Anyway, there was a lot of debate over Feiglin’s move, and while I don’t remember if a consensus was ever reached (unlikely) I do remember that the OP compared the move to Shulamit Aloni running for a seat in Mafdal…

  2. 2 Nobody 2009-06-09 at 10:02

    I wouldn’t vote for Feiglin or for Likud either (or for anyone), but isn’t this begging the question? What are the principles of Likud? Whatever Jabotinsky said? Whatever Sharon said? If Jabotinsky and Sharon were alive today, I don’t think they’d be willing to share the same party. Even if we could articulate what Likud’s principles are, there’s no reason to believe they’ll be the same in a year or in a decade. For Feiglin to claim that he’s loyal to the principles of Likud is no more deceptive than for Sharon to have claimed it. Feiglin only wants to introduce his values into the discussion and let them compete fairly.

    • 3 aharoni 2009-06-09 at 10:15

      Likud’s only principle is to be the governing party, whether in this term or in the next. The above applies also to Avoda, Kadima, and the Republican and Democratic parties in the US. Sharon would gladly share that (ahem, דין נצרים כדין תל אביב). Not Jabotinski – these days all that’s left from him is a street name.

      Feiglin, on the other hand, has principles. He has written them down, you can read them on his website, and i am quite sure that he actually acts according to them. Likud also has “principles” that are written down, but they don’t have much to do with what the Likud members and MK’s actually do. Feiglin says that he came to fix it, but his written principles contradict the written principles of the Likud on a few points – hence he’s a bit of a trickster.

      But that’s not my main point. My main point is that prohibiting Jews from living anywhere is racist and no quotations from the Geneva Conventions will change that – and that’s where i have to agree with Mr. Feiglin. I can’t even say that i disagree with Mr. Obama, because i don’t think that he actually has an educated opinion on the matter.

      • 4 LB 2009-06-09 at 10:32

        Of course Likud’s governing principle is to be the ruling party, as is Kadima’s and Labor’s (what will be left of it in a few months anyway). In any case, Sharon and Feiglin are equally deceptive for another reason – neither of them have their political roots in the Likud. Feiglin’s difference with the Likud is better know than Sharon’s, but most today think that Sharon changed his views with August 2005 – not at all. He grew up in Mapai, and for political reasons joined Likud.

        In any case, I think people can more honest about it – Feiglin should say that his only chance of making a difference is from within Likud, and that is why he joined. The system is ridiculously skewed towards the large parties – and the others only have some power during coalitionary negotiations, and I don’t think it would be wrong for him to come and say that. That is what he’s doing, after all.

      • 5 Nobody 2009-06-09 at 13:06

        Likud’s only principle is to be the governing party, whether in this term or in the next.

        Right, so how does Feiglin disagree with this? He chose Likud because he expected it to be the dominant party in the next generation. His interest, now that he and his followers are ensconced in Likud, is to turn it into the governing party.

        Not Jabotinski – these days all that’s left from him is a street name.

        You’d be surprised. I go to his azkara every year at Har Herzl in my Betar uniform and am consistently impressed by how many people can “talk Jabotinsky” with me intelligently and with nuance. Some of them are even younger than 50.

        Feiglin says that he came to fix it, but his written principles contradict the written principles of the Likud on a few points – hence he’s a bit of a trickster.

        I think you’ll find very few Likud central committee members who seriously agree with all of the Likud platform, or even know what it says. The same goes for Likud MKs. Feiglin doesn’t either – but his disagreement is in writing. This makes him a trickster? It seems to me that this makes him transparent and honest, a rarity.

        prohibiting Jews from living anywhere is racist and no quotations from the Geneva Conventions will change that

        I once made arguments like this all the time. Then I came to believe that if we are right to conquer and settle the whole land of Israel, it is right for the world to help us do it, and if we are wrong to conquer and settle the land of Israel, it is right for the world to prevent us from doing it. Then I came to believe that it is stupid to point out progressive hypocrisy, since progressivism is hypocrisy and the label will never stick.

        By the way, I take you at your word that you disagree with Feiglin for the reasons you said, but I believe a lot of people hate Feiglin because he didn’t want to play the role expected of the normal kippa-wearing guy in politics. His analysis is that Mafdal and the right-wing parties are kept around to siphon off the religious and right-wing vote and to channel their influence over society to areas like education or tourism, and he refused to be a part of it. He says that kippa-wearers (“the believing public”) can provide leadership that’s better than the leadership of the kibbutzim or the branja. As far as I know, he’s the only one who thought of that idea. I used to agree with him, but now I disagree: religious people in Israel are not psychologically equipped to replace the cultural elites that we know. Still, I have more than a passing interest in Feiglin and his ideas.

        • 6 aharoni 2009-06-09 at 13:51

          > Right, so how does Feiglin disagree with this?

          He probably doesn’t. But he has extras – some good, some bad.

          > > Not Jabotinski – these days all that’s left from him is a street name.

          > I [...] am consistently impressed by how many people can “talk Jabotinsky” with me intelligently and with nuance. Some of them are even younger than 50.

          Lovely, but they are not running the country according to him. Whether it is good or bad – that’s another question. I don’t claim to actually understand Jabotinsky’s theory.

          > This makes him a trickster? It seems to me that this makes him transparent and honest, a rarity.

          A bit of a trickster. He certainly does appear more honest than many others.

  3. 7 Nobody 2009-06-09 at 13:07

    ps. Who would have guessed that “cite” would capitalize every word?

  4. 10 Bloix 2009-09-29 at 05:55

    not that anyone will ever read this – but okay, let’s say all the Jews who wants to settle in Samaria can do so. But they can’t vote in Israeli elections because they don’t live in Israel. And they can’t get Israeli social services or police protection because they’re not Israelis.

    or, we can say that everyone who lives in Samaria regardless of their religion or ethnic heritage is an Israeli, can vote in Israeli elections, and has equal access to Israeli social services.

    Do you like those choices? If not, here’s your homework assignment: Write 500 words on why your choice is not racist.

    • 11 Nobody 2009-09-29 at 06:53

      I can do it in five words: Jews are not a race.

    • 12 aharoni 2009-09-29 at 11:35

      If Jews can live in Samaria, but can’t vote anywhere, it’s racist. And when Arabs in Samaria couldn’t vote anywhere, it was racist. The current situation is only mildly better, because their voting is not actually democratic – a system where an openly violent party like Hamas can run is not democratic.

      If Jews can live in Samaria, but can vote in a democratic Palestinian state, it’s perfectly OK.

      If everyone in Samaria can vote in Israel, it’s also perfectly OK, as long as the constitution doesn’t allows fanatical parties like Hamas or Shas to run in an election. I don’t belong to the Binational-state-o-phobic camp.

      • 13 Nobody 2009-09-30 at 06:49

        For someone who cares about language, I’m surprised you’re not concerned about how you’re broadly defining racism. Things that are unfair and things that are undemocratic can be unfair and undemocratic without being racist. Not every distinction between one group of people and another is racism.

        • 14 aharoni 2009-09-30 at 09:58

          It’s close enough to what i want to say, shorter that “discriminatory” and more generic than “antisemitic”. “Generic” is the important part – the whole point of what i wanted to write here is that discriminating against Jews is the same as discriminating against Arabs, Russians, Chechens, Catalans, Germans and anyone else. Giyur may seem like a significant difference between Jews and other nations, but in fact it is not that big.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,706 other followers

%d bloggers like this: