Zionuts

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't know that I would characterize it as normal, nor would I use Wiggin's "common," though there are of course areas/groups where it is more common than others. But it's certainly not new nor unfamiliar

[wiggin]

I don't know that I would characterize it as normal, nor would I use Wiggin's "common," though there are of course areas/groups where it is more common than others. But it's certainly not new nor unfamiliar

Jewish deicide was a key component of Christian theology since at least Chrysostom (4th century). It was softened a bit in the Council of Trent and fully repudiated by Vatican II but that was way too little, too late. Elements of the claim have continued in much of Christian liturgy. Many protestant denominations have not repudiated Jewish deicide at all, or done it decades after Vatican II. Hell, even Vatican II was pretty mealy-mouthed about it after the absolutely damning amount of suffering that this widely preached belief has caused over the centuries.

Repeated polls of the US population as a whole (not just Christians) have shown that between 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 Americans believe Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. These data spans from the late 90s to 2019:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...ath-increases/
https://www.adl.org/survey-of-americ...pes-about-jews

European attitudes are broadly similar, with 14-46% of various populations believing in Jewish deicide:
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/fi...ruary_2012.pdf

I wasn't able to easily find data on global Christian attitudes but I imagine it's similar or worse elsewhere. I think a quarter of the population believing a widely repudiated antisemitic myth counts as 'common'.

[LittleFuzzy]

Ok, so the Christian narrative as taught now by all those elements I'm familiar with (I'm far from an expert, and my own working background here is almost entirely Western Prot) is that Jesus was killed by the Romans at the behest of Jewish authorities. I want to say "local Jewish authorities" but that kinda feels like a distinction without a difference considering what conditions had to be like in Judea then. And the Roman governor really didn't see any reason to do so and tried to wash his own hands of it, leaving the decision of whether Jesus was to die or not to the locals. No discussion here about historical accuracy, but that is the general Christian-religion narrative, correct? By that narrative, those Jews were responsible. They certainly did not have sole responsibility (my particular Protestant branch is Calvinist and is at least officially predeterminist which by all logic ought to further muddy application of that burden, above and beyond all issues of intent with holy trinities, suicide, projective martyrdom, etc) but they would share culpability in that narrative. But even if/when people hold those Jews responsible, that's a far cry from holding Jews now responsible. Which your own first source attests to, finding a far smaller body percentage adopting such a stance. Still too large but at that point we're a lot closer to calling it "fringe." You can find almost anything that can be espoused by 5-10% of a relevant population.

[wiggin]

Ok, so the Christian narrative as taught now by all those elements I'm familiar with (I'm far from an expert, and my own working background here is almost entirely Western Prot) is that Jesus was killed by the Romans at the behest of Jewish authorities. I want to say "local Jewish authorities" but that kinda feels like a distinction without a difference considering what conditions had to be like in Judea then. And the Roman governor really didn't see any reason to do so and tried to wash his own hands of it, leaving the decision of whether Jesus was to die or not to the locals. No discussion here about historical accuracy, but that is the general Christian-religion narrative, correct? By that narrative, those Jews were responsible. They certainly did not have sole responsibility (my particular Protestant branch is Calvinist and is at least officially predeterminist which by all logic ought to further muddy application of that burden, above and beyond all issues of intent with holy trinities, suicide, projective martyrdom, etc) but they would share culpability in that narrative. But even if/when people hold those Jews responsible, that's a far cry from holding Jews now responsible. Which your own first source attests to, finding a far smaller body percentage adopting such a stance. Still too large but at that point we're a lot closer to calling it "fringe." You can find almost anything that can be espoused by 5-10% of a relevant population.

I think you're splitting hairs. If 20-25% of a population (some of which isn't even Christian) answers 'Were the Jews responsible for the death of Jesus' (an explicit charge of collective responsibility) I'm not going to feel much better when asked a much more pointed question about whether 'all Jews today' are responsible only gets 1/3 of that number. The charge of deicide is deeply ingrained in Christian history and theology even though it has been officially softened at the edges since it's become unfashionable to be openly antisemitic.

It is true that three of the gospels relate a trial before Jewish authorities before handing him over to Pilate (and work hard to limit the responsibility of Pilate), though there's obvious reasons to doubt the exact historicity of the narrative. Regardless of historicity, your interpretation of Christian thought is a very new way of looking at things. The collective responsibility of Jews - past, certainly, as well as present - for the death of Jesus has been a fundamental part of Christian theology since at least the 4th century, with earlier strains going back to the 2nd century. It is such a fundamental part of Christian antisemitism that I'm quite surprised you're parroting a much more recent (and far from universally held) interpretation.

[LittleFuzzy]

I think you're splitting hairs. If 20-25% of a population (some of which isn't even Christian) answers 'Were the Jews responsible for the death of Jesus' (an explicit charge of collective responsibility) I'm not going to feel much better when asked a much more pointed question about whether 'all Jews today' are responsible only gets 1/3 of that number. The charge of deicide is deeply ingrained in Christian history and theology even though it has been officially softened at the edges since it's become unfashionable to be openly antisemitic.

You ask me that in a survey format and I'm likely to respond yes myself. I'd answer yes for other responsible agents too, and there are contextual assumptions being made by asking the question in such a fashion at all, but surveys tend to drain context as we are all aware. That bit of Christian narrative has been used to justify a great deal of antisemitism in history. That it is the religion's pseudo-historical narrative and that it is acknowledged as such is not anti-semitic.

[Aimless]

Based on the information that's currently available, Enoch's reaction appears to be the appropriate one. Evangelical dingdong upholding mainstream Evangelical norms, unaware—like many modern Christians—of the dangerously antisemitic context alluded to by this passage and others like it. I dunno to what extent American schools touch on this particular expression of antisemitism, but the only reason we touched on it at all at my school is because some of us were interested; it would've been completely ignored otherwise. My guess is the vast overwhelming majority of Christians in the US aren't even aware of there being any Jewish perspectives in need of consideration, in this matter, while a smaller extremist minority has deliberately cultivated overtly antisemitic attitudes because "Jews killed Jesus".

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

[Enoch the Red]

Not quite the best place to post, but has anyone else been amazed at the video footage of Iron Dome operating at scale? Especially the videos shot at night. Seeing missiles turning 180 degrees in seconds to engage a different target is at the same time equal parts beautiful and unsettling.

[wiggin]

Not quite the best place to post, but has anyone else been amazed at the video footage of Iron Dome operating at scale? Especially the videos shot at night. Seeing missiles turning 180 degrees in seconds to engage a different target is at the same time equal parts beautiful and unsettling.

The Iron Dome system is surprisingly capable, yes. But it's worth noting that their efficacy seems to have plateaued at ~85-90% of attempted interceptions. This is likely due to limitations on the system's ability to intercept certain trajectories effectively (very short or very low trajectories), inaccurate tracking of trajectories (the system relies on extremely powerful and sophisticated radar systems and they sometimes miscalculate), and overwhelming the battle control system during large salvos.

It also seems like Hamas is learning during each conflict on how to best saturate the system. In the last major exchange in 2014, Hamas and allied groups launched ~4500 rockets and mortars at Israeli towns. This resulted in the deaths of 6 civilians. In the last few days, Hamas has launched something like 1300 rockets and mortars and killed the same number of civilians. There are all sorts of potential reasons for this higher efficacy, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was partially due to improved rocket technology and tactics by Hamas.

This has practical ramifications - it's nice to imagine that the Iron Dome allows Israeli civilians to go about their lives like normal, eliminating a major piece of leverage that Hamas can use to drive the agenda. But in reality Israel relies on passive defenses (a massive network of fortified rooms and bomb shelters) to provide protection for most of their civilian population. In the last few days, normal life has ground to a halt for most of the country - schools and workplaces are closed, most commerce has dramatically slowed, etc. My sister in central Israel has spent the last few nights cooped up in a stairwell with her 15 month old daughter - they live too far away from the shelter to make it there in time when a siren goes off, but the reinforced concrete of their building's stairwell is marginally safer than the bedrooms. Similarly, a number of our friends in combat units have already been recalled for indefinite reserve duty. This has two ramifications: first, the reservists themselves are no longer doing their day jobs (which tend to be rather more economically productive than massing on a border in an armored vehicle), and second their spouses are left behind managing solo, also impacting their own productivity and psyches. Not exactly conducive to denying Hamas leverage.

There's also the matter of direct and indirect costs. Directly, the interceptions are 'cheap' but still much more expensive than the weapons they are intercepting. Figure $50-100k per intercept. That means we're talking about upwards of $10 million a day in interceptors; manageable but not cheap. Then there's the diversion of capital, manpower, and R&D focus to developing, acquiring, and operating the systems themselves. These batteries are by necessity quite short range and Israel needs a lot of them to cover the ever-increasing area under threat by Hamas. It takes billions of dollars to set up and staff a system like this, money that could have been used for other military goals or even diverted to civilian purposes. Much of the cost has been subsidized by the US, true, but not all of it - and in some ways US funding may substitute for alternative uses for the money.

Indirectly, the system imposes certain limitations on Israeli strategic thinking and capacity. The reality is that Iron Dome can give Israel's leaders more time and patience in the face of rocket fire - with minimal civilian casualties, they can ignore most rocket fire until it crosses known red lines (large salvos, attacks on large cities, etc.). And even then they can wait to rely on patience and air power rather than a ground assault, which is generally much more costly and typically provokes the most extreme international opprobrium. All of this is ostensibly good in that it gives optionality to Israel's leadership. In practice, though, options lead to indecision and half measures. Iron Dome may allow Israel's leaders to indefinitely 'manage' the conflict with Gaza - every few years, engage in tit-for-tat rocket attacks and airstrikes that mildly degrade Hamas' capabilities and leadership but don't fundamentally change the calculus.

But long term that may not be in anyone's best interests. It's possible that being forced into something more substantial can have real effects - either through a more ambitious and sustained ground assault that could really damage Hamas, or through more focus on political solutions like a genuine engagement with Hamas. The reality is that there is a Palestinian state already, it's in Gaza and run (poorly) by Hamas. Israel has been reluctant to recognize this reality both because it sidelines Fatah and because Hamas is bad (well, worse) news. I'm not convinced that direct engagement with Hamas is the right idea or not, but the point is that Iron Dome gives the Israeli leadership the ability to avoid truly difficult and unpleasant choices (e.g. a ruinously expensive ground intervention vs. direct engagement and recognition of some very unpleasant folks); in the long term I am not sure that's a good thing.

That being said, I'm certainly glad that the Iron Dome exists. The carnage in Israeli cities would have been much worse in the last few days without the technology.

[Dreadnaught]

I sign-into social media maybe 1-2x/week, but I was BLOWN away by all the anti-Israel memes from random people who seem to be generally unaware of the conflict but are finding out about it via some uninformed influencer (who themselves knows next to nothing but will just follow The Narrative).

It's not surprising I suppose, but somehow still unexpected.

[Loki]

You need to follow better people on social media. Haven't seen a single anti-Israeli screed in my feed.

[Aimless]

"Stanford GOP" (lololol can you imagine) and an army of Republican thought-leaders just got a young Jewish pro-Palestinian reporter canceled, ostensibly over antisemitism, but possibly really over unspecified social media posts—after AP assured her she wouldn't be fired over her tweets:

Twitter Link

I'm not sure anyone actually disputed the characterizations of Adelson or Shapiro.

[Aimless]

Just... leaving this here

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Well, I guess it's a bit nuts

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Nope, the internet isn't done yet

Twitter Link

[Flixy]

https://www.newsweek.com/school-boar...-pizza-1597448

That's a very weird choice of punishment.

[Loki]

Hebrew Israelites aren't Jewish.

The counter-explanation I've seen is that the student was given the option of eating chicken nuggets or a pizza, which would suggest this was more an issue of the coaches being insensitive than outright bigoted.

[Veldan Rath]

Hebrew Israelites aren't Jewish.

The counter-explanation I've seen is that the student was given the option of eating chicken nuggets or a pizza, which would suggest this was more an issue of the coaches being insensitive than outright bigoted.

Still...just dumber than a box of hair.

No other punishment could have been come up with? I recall laps, extra work, or just being the schmuck that has to clean up afterwards...this was just freaking stupid.

[wiggin]

Hamas criticizes Ilhan Omar for equating them with Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-...s-with-israel/

[Loki]

A last ditch maneuver by Netanyahu to stay in power. Luckily, it failed: https://www.timesofisrael.com/raam-m...vering-on-vote

I don't think there's any single person in recent times who's done more damage to the state of Israel than Netanyahu. Good riddance.

[wiggin]

I give the new government 18 months.

[Aimless]

A last ditch maneuver by Netanyahu to stay in power. Luckily, it failed: https://www.timesofisrael.com/raam-m...vering-on-vote

I don't think there's any single person in recent times who's done more damage to the state of Israel than Netanyahu. Good riddance.

No, he should be appointed PM again so that he can be ousted again and again

[Hazir]

You need to follow better people on social media. Haven't seen a single anti-Israeli screed in my feed.

Ditto for me.

[wiggin]

I don't think there's any single person in recent times who's done more damage to the state of Israel than Netanyahu. Good riddance.

You know, while I think there's some justice to this statement, there is one pretty good thing that he did. In his desperation to maintain power, he broke a taboo in Israeli politics - he invited an Arab opposition party to join his failed coalition government. This hasn't happened in a very long time - right wing parties didn't want anything to do with openly anti-Zionist groups (the feeling was mutual), and centrists/leftists were afraid of being labelled as terrorist sympathizers.

Now that Netanyahu (who no one is going to accuse of being a soft lefty) has done it, it's opened up the opportunity for pragmatic coalitions including Arab parties as a special interest party like Shas, rather than as an ideological party. Mansour Abbas obviously cares about Palestinian issues, but he doesn't care anywhere near as much as he cares about issues facing the Israeli Arab community - this pragmatism was part of his pitch to voters, and was evidenced in his contemplating joining either a Netanyahu or Lapid/Bennett led government. And he got some solid concessions in the coalition negotiations, including official state sanction for some unplanned Bedouin communities that had rather precarious futures.

It is pretty crazy to have them in the same coalition with some of these other parties, though. Back when Ra'am was in talks to join a Netanyahu government with Tkuma, there was a little joke running around Israel (it works better in Hebrew, but bear with me):

Mansour Abbas speaks up at a cabinet meeting, complaining about expansion of settlements. Betzalel Smotrich shoots back, calling him a terrorist sympathizer. Amir Ohana says, "Gentlemen, can't we all just get along?", to which Smotrich and Abbas turn and say, "Shut up, homo!"

The current coalition is only slightly less unlikely, and highly probable that it's inherently unstable. But the tacit 'permission' to engage politically with Arab parties is going to last long after this government falls.

[Hazir]

You know, while I think there's some justice to this statement, there is one pretty good thing that he did. In his desperation to maintain power, he broke a taboo in Israeli politics - he invited an Arab opposition party to join his failed coalition government. This hasn't happened in a very long time - right wing parties didn't want anything to do with openly anti-Zionist groups (the feeling was mutual), and centrists/leftists were afraid of being labelled as terrorist sympathizers.

Now that Netanyahu (who no one is going to accuse of being a soft lefty) has done it, it's opened up the opportunity for pragmatic coalitions including Arab parties as a special interest party like Shas, rather than as an ideological party. Mansour Abbas obviously cares about Palestinian issues, but he doesn't care anywhere near as much as he cares about issues facing the Israeli Arab community - this pragmatism was part of his pitch to voters, and was evidenced in his contemplating joining either a Netanyahu or Lapid/Bennett led government. And he got some solid concessions in the coalition negotiations, including official state sanction for some unplanned Bedouin communities that had rather precarious futures.

It is pretty crazy to have them in the same coalition with some of these other parties, though. Back when Ra'am was in talks to join a Netanyahu government with Tkuma, there was a little joke running around Israel (it works better in Hebrew, but bear with me):

Mansour Abbas speaks up at a cabinet meeting, complaining about expansion of settlements. Betzalel Smotrich shoots back, calling him a terrorist sympathizer. Amir Ohana says, "Gentlemen, can't we all just get along?", to which Smotrich and Abbas turn and say, "Shut up, homo!"

The current coalition is only slightly less unlikely, and highly probable that it's inherently unstable. But the tacit 'permission' to engage politically with Arab parties is going to last long after this government falls.

The first unlikely cabinet we had in The Netherlands served a full term. Also, small majority cabinets have shown themselves to be very very hard to push out of office. I am not shy to think this experience counts; we have 19 parties in a 150 seat parliament.

[wiggin]

Certainly anything is possible; Israelis are sick and tired of elections, and having the possibility of Netanyahu's exit from politics (though this is far from assured) may lend some stability. But there are some fundamental rifts in the coalition that can only be papered over for so long.

[Hazir]

Like parties that are sworn enemies yet are in a coalition that somehow never addresses the issues that under normal circumstances could easily become explosive? The thing is that these politicians experience besides what they can't achieve there are a lot of things just as worthwhile that suddenly become possible.

[wiggin]

Not exactly Zionuts but....

How Naftali Bennet's Kippah Stays on His Bald Head

I love that someone wanted to know the answer to this question.

[Hazir]

Wouldn't nanotape be a good and economical solution

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

Hidden reply:



Linking to this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...97c_story.html

JERUSALEM — Just hours after a vaccine-sharing agreement was announced with Israel on Friday, the Palestinian Authority announced that the deal was off because the doses donated by Israel were too close to their expiration date and did not meet its standards.

Israel announced that it would send more than 1 million doses of coronavirus vaccines close to their expiration date to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank in exchange for a similar quantity of fresh vaccine to be returned by the Palestinians later in the year, officials said Friday.

The arrangement to cooperatively manage their vaccine stocks would have allowed the Palestinian Ministry of Health to accelerate its vaccine campaign while keeping unneeded doses in Israel from going to waste. Israel — which has already vaccinated a significant majority of its residents — will get its vaccine stocks replenished in time for booster shots later in the year, experts said.

However, Palestinian Health Minister Mai Alkaila told reporters Friday that they had expected the doses to have expiration dates for July or August. After they received them, Alkaila said, they saw that the doses would in fact expire in June.

“That’s not enough time to use them, so we rejected them,” Alkaila said, according to Reuters.

And reuters reports:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...nt-2021-06-18/

Israel and the PA announced a vaccine swap deal earlier on Friday that would have seen Israel send up to 1.4 million Pfizer-BioNTech doses to the PA, in exchange for receiving a reciprocal number of doses from the PA later this year.

The doses were due to "expire soon", Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's office said in a statement announcing the deal. The PA said they had been "approved in order to speed up the vaccination process" in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

"They told us the expiration date was in July or August, which would allow lots of time for use," PA Health Minister Mai Alkaila told reporters later on Friday.

"But (the expiration) turned out to be in June. That's not enough time to use them, so we rejected them," she said.

The PA cancelled the deal over the date issue, a PA spokesman said, and sent the initial shipment of around 90,000 doses back to Israel.

Bennett's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

American Zionists are so fucking weird sometimes.