Liberal Zionism at 65: Fantasy and reality

[azurnoir]

Imagine if you would, for a minute, that Liberal Zionists have been proven correct: that it is totally possible for a state that accords privileges to members of one specific ethnic group only – Jews, in this case – to be a flourishing democracy. Imagine that Israel is indeed a Light Unto the Nations, and that people from all the other nations who see the light can easily immigrate, date, mate and marry a local. Imagine that in the Holy Land, all human beings are treated equally; let’s pretend that we live in the State of “Librael.”

As in the State of Israel, the three weeks that take place during the end of March to the beginning of May (depending on the Hebrew date) are an important time here in the State of Librael. First we celebrate Passover, the holiday of redemption from slavery. Then comes Holocaust Remembrance Day, where we mourn for the victims of genocide. A week later is Memorial Day, where we honor those who fell in battle to fight for our homeland. And the next day is Independence Day, when we celebrate living in the land as free people.

..........................................

Sixty-five years have now passed since the State of Israel was established. Liberal Zionists have had plenty of time to prove that it is possible for an ethnocracy to simultaneously be a liberal democracy. In this, they have failed miserably. Polls prove what any Israeli who understands Hebrew and has a heartbeat can tell you: that racism is rampant, and that the youth are even worse than their predecessors. Liberal Zionism has given birth to a state that relegates non-Jews to less than second-class status, and a generation of Israelis who believe that they should suffer their servitude in silence, or else leave.

With that kind of 65-year track record, isn’t it high time that Liberal Zionism retired?

http://972mag.com/liberal-zionism-at-65-fantasy-and-reality/69008/

[pelsar]

1. David (the writer) is confused...

Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2013, 04:48 AM - Edit history (2)

a couple notes:
1) He confuses israeli liberalism with the general 'western version" that believes the only opposition to the perfect liberal utopia is the "society itself" and not other forces. Israeli liberals are for the most part more practical and understand the limitations of idealism, and can differentiate between the limitations of implementation vs ideals.

2) He doesnt comprehend that Israel, is not a superior society, but aspires to be a better one

3) Israel, like all societies are work in progress, which means constant change to adapt to new demands be they external or internal.

4) He believes his version of the "liberal society" is the only definition that really counts.....

in short the writer, verges on the line, to use the vernacular of this site and other far left: is an intolerant apartheid racist that somehow believes that israel with its jewish culture should be different (as per his view) from other countries and that israel has superior abilities than other societies....and its failures means as liberal society its a failure

[Israeli]

3. I've never heard of

David Sheen until now ,
but he sounds like a post-zionist to me pelsar :

" But if you believe that Israel should be a state of all its citizens, and that non-Jewish people should not have been expelled and not permitted to return after the 1948 war – and that non-Jewish people should not be expelled today in 2013 – then your freedom of speech and your freedom of movement will be rescinded. "

Who exactly are the Liberal Zionists anyway ?

Polls prove what any Israeli who understands Hebrew and has a heartbeat can tell you: that racism is rampant, and that the youth are even worse than their predecessors. Liberal Zionism has given birth to a state that relegates non-Jews to less than second-class status, and a generation of Israelis who believe that they should suffer their servitude in silence, or else leave.

Now aint that the gods honest truth .

[pelsar]

6. racism in israel...

when wasnt there racism?......
has there been no improvement?... when the israeli arabs lived under military law? when the Sephardim were treated poorly? as second class citizens and the arabs as third class?

was it not simply acceptable in the past? whereas now its far less?

israeli arabs have made great strides forward in integrating into the society, just because there is no magic wand to remove all perceived ills by a specific group, does not mean throwing away the concept of liberal israeli for something "new"....

perhaps he is one of those that demand instant solutions (his) to complex human problems and doesnt understand the societies change in time, but it does take time and its only liberal societies that have that ability.

Maybe he wants a "liberal dictatorship'?

[azurnoir]

11. for myself I can no longer even define Zionism

I've asked here on DU twice and gotten a range of answers from simply accepting and supporting the existence of Israel to supporting everything Israel does including the settlements-all this from the ProIsrael side mind you and the most extreme one of course tried to nullify his saying that to be a Zionist and ProIsrael you had to also support the settlements with anyone who is really ProPalestinians must also support the destruction of Israel it all cloaked under being all they can be of course

[King_David]

13. Yea it's confusing for those of us who are not really involved in the conflict

Some people who are very passionately
" involved "in the debate don't really love there ,have any link to the place , have no family or friends there and have never been there.

Zionism gets confusing ...

( I have never been confused)

[azurnoir]

14. No David that is not exactly what I mean

5 years ago I knew 3 years ago I knew but something has changed, however I am quite sure you do know and in the past back on DU2 we've discussed it too

[pelsar]

21. its simply....

its basic core is "self-determination"...nationalism.

whereas in 1948 for example it was the creation of a state, that core value has been established, and the fissions between the groups that once worked together now get to become louder, but it hardly means that the concept is dead or to be rejected.

its not american politics where you all are frozen in a political apartheid mentality that proclaims anybody who doesnt "walk the line" is obviously a traitor, racist, bigoted pig....

zionism takes in all from far right to far left....the exception being the "post zionists" who have voluntarily decided to take the route of redefinition so as not to be "tainted" with zionism and therefore acceptable to the far left.

[azurnoir]

26. Americans are frozen in bigoted lock step dependent on which party they belong to?

I suggest you get venture out of I/P more or were you speaking of the Democratic party?

[pelsar]

29. both parties.....

its amazing watching both parties..both believing that they have the open mind, while proclaiming the "other" being narrow minded bigots.....

[azurnoir]

30. Both parties claim to have open minds?

it seems you do not know much about American politics

[pelsar]

31. on the contrary...

i'm very well versed in american politics and watching the elections was fascinating, the attempts at character assassination, the lies thrown back and forth, the exaggerations used, the pouncing on gaffes, that were absurd, the irrelevant information blown out of proportion

and both sides claiming "innocence" and pointing the finger saying "its not us..its them.....
and the concept of either "your for us or against us" mentality...

basically it was like watching children......

[azurnoir]

32. perhaps you should broaden your viewing or reading scope a bit then n/t

[pelsar]

33. why?

you probably believe that the democratic party is pure......

[azurnoir]

34. Nothing or very little is pure pelsar do I really have to tell you that? n/t

[pelsar]

35. and that is the point..

both parties as far as i'm concerned made fools out of themselves, using the same tactics, extreme tactics, absurd claims etc and that fact that you cant see that it was done by both is absurd.

you cant see the democratic apartheid politics for example, which is simply indicative of a very narrow viewpoint that you have of your 'home team."

and yes i'm using your own broad definition of apartheid.....its fits nicely here.

[azurnoir]

36. so tell us how does the Democratic party of 2013 practice "apartheid politics"? n/t

[pelsar]

37. voting blocks....

the whole election was based on "voting" blocks based on skin color, origination, culture, etc....and it then directed certain issues and different resources (money, time) toward those very groups...while ignoring other groups.....i.e. they differentiated between what voting block would receive what resources while others were discriminated against and received less...

for instance i suspect that the black voting block received far less resources then the spanish ones, or the younger vote received far more resources than the older white

that fits your definition of apartheid....
___

how about canvasing for help?..i would guess they had more ads in colleges then in "anytown USA in ohio...so even in looking for help they had apartheid politics (again according to your broad definition)

[azurnoir]

38. well first you are speculating

and no it does not fit my definition of apartheid or anything else save speculation

[pelsar]

41. not as i have understand you definition

you were very clear about anything that is not equal is "apartheid"...so i'm just using it as i understand you definition.

speculation?
and if you actually claiming the democratic party spent the same resources on "older white men" in the midwest and looked to employ them in the campaign as they did on the younger student vote and potential student (university) workers...well I've got a bridge to sell you.....

[azurnoir]

42. except I did not say that and yes as far as how Democratic party funds are allocated

you are indeed speculating

[pelsar]

44. wow...n/t

[azurnoir]

58. wow is right

so much speculation and conjecture

[cali]

53. that is simplistic bullshit, pelsar.

no, that wasn't what the "whole election" was based on. Add in economic resources. Don't forget that the democratic coalition is far, far broader than the republican coalition regarding everything you list.

What spanish voting blocks?

No the democratic party is certainly not pure, but there are significant differences between the two parties that you seem to ignore.

[pelsar]

61. i was using the new "apartheid definition....as i learned here

Don't forget that the democratic coalition is far, far broader than the republican coalition regarding everything you list.

the definition of apartheid has nothing to do with quantity and has to do with the unequal use of resources based on various characteristics of various groups.

hence if the democratic party is not using its resources equally amongst the latinos population, christian white population, black inner city population, illegal immigrants (lack of PC on my part fully noted), etc
then we can conclude as per the new apartheid definition that the democratic party is one that supports apartheid....

i believe that a definition of a word is not relative, and once its definition has been finalized or its modification has been "modified and accepted (as apartheid has been here concerning israel) than we can used it elsewhere as well...including the sacred cows of the left

simplistic? of course, just as when israel is accused of it....

[azurnoir]

65. what are you talking about? do you know?

please give us this 'new' definition as you see it, because it seems to be your own

[pelsar]

66. its your definition

as i have now understand your definition (of apartheid), and i have now adopted it as the standard:
everything that is not perfectly equal amongst different groups within israel can be defined as apartheid....

and so i am using your same definition and applying it elsewhere....like the democratic parties use of its resources.

[azurnoir]

67. really? once again I must do you know what you're talking about?

please give us your version of my definition, in detail please

[pelsar]

68. it yours...

where 2 sets of standards are being enforced

this is how your defining it...and to me this is the core sentence (before and after are just commentary)...and as i see it, for instance, if the democratic party is not dividing up its resources properly, its has at least 2 sets of standards (actually more), hence its apartheid

___

i'm just accepting the standard here, where word definitions (and the environment) have a certain flexibility, and i've decided to accept yours.

[azurnoir]

69. but in the case of as you claim who is enforcing them?

where is it canonized in law?

[pelsar]

70. i dont need the law in this case

clearly the democratic party has "rules" and they replace "laws"...hence the apartheid concept still stands

[azurnoir]

71. aha nice except

that is your definition not mine

[azurnoir]

72. Let me help you out a little bit here

at least with the way I'm defining Apartheid

If in New York state a Minister, Priest or someone other wise vested to officiate a marriage ceremony refuses to do so because the couple involved is same sex it's discrimination

however

in my state Minnesota the law that does not legally allow a same sex marriage to be legally recognized is apartheid

[pelsar]

73. its ok..i go skooter on this

i take your definition as a base

thats apartheid in both cases....i'm just going with the flow here of flexible definitions, your attempt at "making sense" clarification is duly noted but really irrelevant.

[azurnoir]

74. not really because in New York state

the law allow same sex marriages to be legally recognized, however in Minnesota the law does not allow recognition at all

[Israeli]

22. Its not for me to even

try to define Zionism as I gave up on it long ago , I'm a post zionist azurnoir and there are many of us .

Try reading this , might help .

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1343412021/

[azurnoir]

27. Thank youas I said I once knew and that is no longer true

if I remember the first time I asked it phrased (or paraphrased from the Who don't get fooled again) to the effect how had the party on left become the party on right, it makes me sad really

[delrem]

40. thank you thank you thank you thank you for being here!

it gives me hope

[Israeli]

59. I dont know how to respond to you

I'm embarrassed and sad at the same time
delrem
there are many kinds of Zionists and there are many kinds of Israelis who are not Zionists
I'm the kind that defines themselves as Israeli , this country is the only home I've known .
I dont like being defined as a Jew , I'm an atheist .

shira and the others define themselves as Jews
they are not Israeli

can you tell the difference ?

[delrem]

81. I was embarrassed to gush. It wasn't appropriate.

Behind the gushing was an appreciation for a different perspective being introduced. One of an Israeli patriot who is forward looking, positive and constructive and unafraid, and who recognizes that a need, now that Israel is established, for dedicating time and effort to peace, to integration. So yours is a perspective that I'm naturally inclined to move toward and I appreciate it when you provide links to more fully explain it.

[Israeli]

86. thank you

you need more Left wing Israelis on here
what you have right now may describe themselves as Democrats but they dont represent us and they dont understand us

[Israeli]

60. tonight is memorial to the fallen

very soon I will go and stand together with my kibbutz members and remember all that have fallen , including 7 soldiers from our kibbutz .
Its a pain thats beyond description .
When shira and king -david are willing and able to share in our pain then and only then will I take anything either of them have to say seriously .

[King_David]

75. I agree with you 100%

No one can be a true Zionist until making Aliyah.

One day....

I have a brother and many 1st cousins in the IDF , G-D forbid I share the pain any time soon....

I am an Atheist too , of Jewish Ethnic origin and Gay to boot.

[azurnoir]

76. Oh a brother too? last time you mentioned family in IDF

it was a cousin

[King_David]

77. Maybe read the post again

[azurnoir]

78. oh I read your post

but I also remember you going on about a "young cousin" who was in IDF and was aghast at some of the stuff you were telling him about I/P on DU, of course when asked further about it you backed off but yes you mentioned him again I see how come he never signed up?

eta with that much family in IDF shouldn't you counted as officially Israeli too

[King_David]

79. Signed up ?

Where?

Not Israeli no, Just an average Jew in the golah.

[azurnoir]

80. oh so you too are in exile?

BTW your use of Englisized Hebrew is quite interesting are you trying to impress, intimidate, or educate

wasn't your cousin going to sign-up to DU or something?

[King_David]

85. Anglacised Hebrew ?

Interesting.

[delrem]

82. I would empathize with your pathos if you showed any concern whatever for the Palestinians. n/t

[King_David]

83. Your empathy for my "pathos"

Would mean less than Zero to myself .

[aranthus]

8. No, he's just not a liberal.

His ideas come from further out on the left. He's dismissive of religion, and nationhood, both of which are core liberal concepts. So what he's really saying is that Israel isn't a liberal democracy because it doesn't live up to his leftist ideas of what a society should be. Presumptuous much?

[pelsar]

10. i figured it out....post zionism

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:20 AM - Edit history (1)

it works like this: as per scoots version of zionism: liberals cant be zionist. And israeli liberals are far to practical and experienced with the limitations of liberal theory to be able to have a common language with the "western leftist"...examples abound here.

so whats an israeli to do that wants to "connect' to the idealist/fantasy world of the western leftist?...declares himself/herself a "post zionist" and they can then be "acceptable" to the western leftest.

The post zionist theory separates oneself from israeli history and proclaims one as a new "normal" citizen of israel, (where many of this left believes that zionism = racism), and you are now acceptable to the worlds leftist culture.

basically its an attempt to integrate with the "others" by denouncing one of the lefts foundation beliefs for ones own identity: self-determination, (just not for "zionists.')

[shira]

84. It's anti-zionism "lite". Calorie Free. Diet Zionism... n/t

[Israeli]

87. if you say so shira

kind of arrogant of you as a non Israeli to say so ,
there again you probably think you know more than three ex members of our Knesset all amongst our better known post zionists :
Shulamit Aloni ,Uri Avnery and Avraham Burg.

Its not anti-zionism in any shape or form ......

When You Say No (or: Poisonous Mushrooms)

(snip)

But in the mouths of our new mini-McCarthys, it has become a simple denunciation. A post-Zionist is a traitor, an Arab-lover, a lackey of the enemy, an agent of the sinister world-wide conspiracy to destroy the Jewish State.

But the results of their labors may be very different from what they expect. Instead of making the term “post-Zionism” a synonym for treason, they may make the term “Zionism” a synonym for fascism, gladdening the hearts of all those around the world who preach a boycott of the “Jewish state”. When the Israeli universities are cleansed of non-conformist thinkers, it will indeed be easy to boycott them.

When you say Zionism, do you mean the humanist vision of Theodor Herzl or Avigdor Lieberman’s Jewish fascism?

Source: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1282429124/

Read it all shira , you to pelsar .

[delrem]

39. This statement (I'll quote) makes no sense.

Pelsar: "He confuses israeli liberalism with the general 'western version" that believes the only opposition to the perfect liberal utopia is the "society itself" and not other forces. Israeli liberals are for the most part more practical and understand the limitations of idealism, and can differentiate between the limitations of implementation vs ideals. "
____________

Let's parse this:

Assertion 1. " 'Israeli liberalism' is supposedly distinguished from a 'western version'
response: Define these terms, exactly, right now, or talk thru' your hat. Your choice. Show that these definitions actually apply to people who call themselves "liberals", and show some relation between your assertions and the literature commonly cited as being seminal in "western liberal" debates.

Assertion 2. A "western version" of "liberalism" is asserted to "believe" (how is that?) "the only opposition to the perfect liberal utopia is the "society itself""
response: First of all, individual people are capable of "belief", but doctrines are not. Collectivities are only said to be capable of belief in the sense that the individuals composing the collectivity jointly affirm some assertion (doctrine) affirming the "belief" in question. E.g. the Roman Catholic Church among others has an Apostles' Creed. Secondly, what the hell are a "liberal utopia" and "society itself".

I think you're extremely confused here and don't understand the distinction between a principle and a fact, a verb and a noun. For starts.

Assertion 3. "Israeli liberals are for the most part..." who the hell are you talking about here? How do *you* define your idea "the limitations of idealism". Understand that your explanation must encompass common understanding of liberal ideals, like a notion that "every citizen ought to be treated equally under the law of the land". For my part I don't think you're even speaking a common language with folk who study human rights...

[pelsar]

43. its simple....but you wont go there....

i just using the the actual environment that israeli liberals face where there are conflicting liberal values and one has to make less than ideal choices...its not in the dictionary nor is it any books that you might read...

but you live in a bubble where you're not in such an environment and can't even imagine such a conflict. We've been over this....you always disappear when moral questions actually come up

For my part I don't think you're even speaking a common language with folk who study human rights...
I don't if they can't address the actual moral problems the come up in real conflict, i have very little respect for them and no common language.

[delrem]

45. You say "its simple", but you say nothing. nt

[pelsar]

46. like you wrote

i have very little common language..

until you can find the courage to discuss conflicting values that liberals face in conflicts, there is little to say..

you'll just make a snide remark and disappear...we've done this already, stay with your "book learning" and theory's....its a safer place for you.

[delrem]

47. You still haven't actually SAID ANYTHING. nt

[pelsar]

48. what would you like?

a scenario where a liberal has to chose which of his values are the more important ones?...you wont got there

that is what every israeli liberal from 16 years old can discuss and give a simply direct understood answer that has an action to it...and what the western liberal wont discuss....
_____

[delrem]

49. I repeat, you have yet to SAY ANYTHING. You accuse, but have no object.

[pelsar]

50. willing to play?

on the condition that you dont run away....
i'll give a different scenario...human rights vs actual life..real life scenario and you get to choose what is the most "moral course"

you will have to choose an action and they will be limited, just as they are in real life....
_____

yes or no?

[delrem]

51. what the hell are you talking about? You make no sense.

[pelsar]

52. i'll make this simple for you

Israeli liberals deal with the reality of limited options and making decisions that deal with conflicts, and conflicting human rights values...making choices which rights are infact more important that other rights.

"western liberals", such as yourself deal with just the theory of rights" and as far as i have learned here, do not seem to have the ability to actually even discuss the various "human rights" when they conflict with one another and one must choose which "right" is the more important one.

Furthermore...the "western liberal" seems to have a problem discussing potential results of implementing their theories and the unintended consequences that may follow...

[delrem]

57. You're explaining some of the contradictions inherent in trying to justify apartheid.

The only thing your screed has to do with liberalism is that you show that when one who supports apartheid claims to be a "liberal" the term loses every trace of its original meaning.

[pelsar]

62. the contradictions lies in liberal theory....

the fact that application of liberal theory will lead to "apartheid" is not justifying it...its accepting that liberal theory has inherent contradictions when one applies it to actual communities where people live with different moralities (which is everywhere). I'm just pointing it out.

and thats the core where, you, as a humanist can never go. If you ever leave your 'armchair" with the nice nuanced definitions and enter real communities or far more vivid..conflicts and apply your theories, your going to have to face contractions.

Here i'll give you another of one of my favorite liberal theories: The responsibility to protect (ever hear of it?). This was used to bomb Lybia and remove Kaddafi...so what actually happened when applied?
well first NATO bombs people from 15,000ft....who knows how many buildings collapsed on innocents...so much for protecting and of course we have "consequences"...... who controls Lybia now?...not any one that believes in the western version of "protecting" but more so, the application of this liberal theory (R2P) has put modern weapons in syria, where more are now being killed, it helped intensify the war next door in Mali, where more are now being killed and the rebels have intensified their attacks....(killing more people, not a very liberal thing to do)

that is liberal theory in action and its not very protective of the innocents.

____

or this one:
in your liberal society, will you allow for the teaching of conservative theory? of nazi theories? or will you restrict them, thereby being anti liberal by restricting how and what people might learn (thereby limiting the possibility of spreading conservative thought, and eventually changing the society from liberal to conservative .....)

[delrem]

63. wow!

[pelsar]

64. dont like reality....

you're very good a short snide remarks...you good a writing up dictionary definitions..but what your really really good at...is not being able to actually apply liberal theory to a real environment...

you simply dont even know how to discuss it....

[King_David]

2. "David Sheen is a writer and film maker born in Canada and based in Israel. "

Guess this dude made Aliyah .

Wonder what kind of Zionist he is if not Liberal .

[Israeli]

4. I'm guessing this kind ...

Meet the Post-zionist Zionists

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/12/meet-the-post-zionist-zionists-sivan-fridman.html

[King_David]

5. Looked it over, seems a fringe , not so busy website ,based in USA ?

Did they make Aliyah ?

Or are they armchair Zionists such as I am?

[Israeli]

7. as far as I am aware

... most Israeli post-zionists are sabras King_David , least those that I know are

But what does Zionism mean today?

Many Israelis have a complicated relationship with the word and hesitate to stand behind it (or even near it). Most live by their own personal definition, which sometimes bears little resemblance to the conventional or historical definition of Zionism. Ask seven Israelis and you’ll get seven completely different answers—like I did.

Meet the other Post-zionist Zionists :

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/12/meet-the-post-zionist-zionists-jesse-fox.html

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/12/meet-the-post-zionist-zionists-tom-mehager.html

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/meet-the-post-zionist-zionists-hanny-ben-israel.html

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/meet-the-post-zionist-zionists-dvir-tzur.html

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/meet-the-post-zionist-zionists-tania-hary.html

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/meet-the-post-zionist-zionists-gilad-zwick.html

[King_David]

15. From what I understand now,

Is a "post-Zionist" is a few self selected more righteous than thou , members of our community that have decided they are going to "save" us .

They are not like us common Jewish Zionists but far more enlightened because
( cough cough ) they " get it" and we
"don't " ( superiority )

I got that correct?

[shira]

20. Odd how little daylight there is b/w post-Zionists & anti-Zios. n/t

[delrem]

28. OK, here is how your subthread tracks so far:

1. an OP with opinions suggesting the failure of "liberal Zionism" after 65 years, by David Sheen.
2. KD: a response pointing out that the author is born in Canada, now based in Israel, asking "what kind of Zionist would he be".
3. I: a response guessing that Sheen is akin to a post-Zionist who's gone through a process of questioning and re-understanding, like Mya Guarnieri.
4. KD: a response suggesting that means "a fringe", questioning "did they make Aliyah", are they hot air or real?
5. I: most post-Zionists she knows are natives. Then questions the term 'Zionism' itself, suggesting that the meaning isn't fixed. Then gives links to articles introducing six post-Zionist thinkers.
6. KD: (now it gets totally ad hominem) post-Zionist = self-selected, self-righteous, blowhards.
7. shira: post-Zionist = anti-Zionist, and from *many* previous posts, anti-Zionist=antisemitic.

Way to go, team.

[King_David]

54. Huh ? nt

[shira]

9. Typical 972 schlock from another 1-stater endorsing a theocratic, totalitarian....

....Palestine based on sharia law.

Far more preferable to a liberal democracy.

The Fascists have always loathed liberal democracy.

[azurnoir]

12. glad you noticed :)

and commented worth it's weight in gold, at least on the fantasy end of things, so to speak

more either/or

[shira]

18. Yep, just another supporter of BDS against "Apartheid Israel"....

....for 1 state, RoR, etc...

IOW, a Fascist.

You'll find his spew elsewhere on the internet @ Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada, etc.

[azurnoir]

24. it's indeed odd what you seem to call fascist and right wing

while posting from places called things like the tea(party) room, algemeiner which has at times bordered on Islamiphobic hysteria, not to mention Pajamas's Media star Phyllis Chesler and the like
I guess some have their definitions, that's quite fine with me though

[LeftishBrit]

16. Since rather few people ever, and even fewer recently, have tried very hard to establish 'Librael'..

one cannot conclude from the failure to do so that it is impossible.

The USA has not done such a great job of establishing a perfect liberal state either; nor has the UK except perhaps during the historically fairly brief postwar-consensus era. The Palestinians have not exactly done a great job of establishing liberalism in the areas where they influence - should they therefore be prevented from having their own state? (For anyone who might wonder, my answer to that is a resounding NO!)

Also consider what preceded Zionism. Not some mythical harmonious egalitarian state, but colonialism - first by the Ottoman, then by the British.

Nationalism of any sort isn't great, and usually has some racist components, but at present it is generally better than its main alternatives - colonialism and tribalism. This in my view applies to Zionism, Palestinian nationalism, and for that matter, British, French or American nationalism.

And perhaps Israelis should be encouraged to work harder toward the goal of 'Librael', rather than told that it isn't possible.

[azurnoir]

17. well the litmus test for liberalism in the US seems to be

Gay rights and abortion rights, everything else seems optional and while both Gay Rights and abortion rights are important IMO there should be more but

[King_David]

19. Yes you have been clear and consistant with that view for sure

But times are a changing ...

[azurnoir]

25. Have I do you care to expound on that? let me pose a question for you that I have a couple of others

are US laws that prohibit 2 people from marrying for no other reason than that they are of the same gender a form of apartheid? yes or no?

[King_David]

55. No because its not Israel where everything is "Apartheid "

[azurnoir]

56. thanks I could not have asked for more :)

[pelsar]

23. and yet the perfect "liberal state"..cannot exist

societies are in flux, new generations "appear" and what was good for the previous one is no longer acceptable to the new one...and two generations after that will be a whole new set of needs will appear and if the society is liberal these people will vote in new politicians to effect their change.

And those changes are indicative of a societies failures, i.e.. its imperfections. Even if at one point in time there is a "perfect liberal society" a second after that, a new kid is born who will be dissatisfied with the rules and will want new ones.

The article, that complains about israels failures is nothing more than a child complaining that he didnt get his way and therefore wants to quit.....