נקודת אור
באראק אובמה, המועמד הדמוקרטי לנשיאות ארצות הברית, הוא גם הסיכוי הטוב ביותר לעצור את הטרור האיסלאמי וגם פוליטיקאי מזן חדש, כזה שמפורר את הציניות שאפפה את הפוליטיקה. משפט אחד שאמר מי שעשוי להיות נשיא המעצמה היחידה בעולם מדגים את זה מצוין.
אחד הנושאים המרכזיים בבחירות בארה"ב הוא נושא האנרגיה. מחירי הדלקים בארה"ב חוזרים אצל שני המועמדים והמנטרה של "ארבעה דולר לגלון" (בערך שלושה שקלים ושמונים אגורות לליטר, לפי היציג של היום - בערך חצי ממה שאנחנו משלמים) חוזרת שוב ושוב. אמריקאים, כמו כולנו, אוהבים שמדברים אליהם לארנק.
אובמה רוצה להפחית את צריכת החשמל בארה"ב, להשקיע כסף בפיתוח מקורות אנרגיה חלופיים ולתמרץ חברות רכב לייצר רכבים היברידיים. הוא מבין שעידן הנפט נגמר. מקיין, לעומתו, רוצה להתחיל לחפש נפט בים. אז מה אם לוקח זמן למצוא נפט? אז מה אם מדובר בפחות ממאה אלף חביות ביום, עד 2020, וכשהסעודים הודיעו שהם יוסיפו חצי מיליון חביות ביום עד סוף השנה מחירי הנפט לא מצמצו? אז מה אם ארה"ב קודחת במפרץ מקסיקו מ-2006 ומחירי הנפט כמעט הוכפלו מאז? אז מה אם נגרם נזק סביבתי? אז מה אם זו אותה מדיניות אנרגיה ישנה הנסמכת על נפט כאשר הנזקים הסביבתיים הולכים וגדלים והנפט הולך ונעלם? אם אפשר להבטיח לאמריקאי שאורח חייו לא ישתנה והוא גם ישלם פחות, זו כותרת סקסית, אז נלך על זה.
בהיעדרה של תכנית אנרגיה אמיתית (התכנית לקידוח בים היא בכלל של ג'ורג' בוש), הקמפיין של מקיין פונה למה שפוליטיקאים עושים הכי טוב - דאחקות. אובמה נתפש בהתבטאות אומללה: הוא אמר שאם שומרים על לחץ אוויר תקין בצמיגים, אפשר לחסוך כסף על דלק. הקמפיין של מקיין התחיל לשלוח לאנשים ונטילים, עם הכותרת "תכנית האנרגיה של אובאמה".
שאלו כל מומחה לאנרגיה. יודעים מה, עזבו מומחי אנרגיה. שאלו את ממשל בוש, שאומר את אותו הדבר בדיוק. שאלו את ארנולד שוורצנגר, רפובליקאי בעצמו, שאמר ביוני את אותו הדבר בדיוק. שמירה על לחץ אוויר תקין בצמיגים חוסכת שלושה עד ארבעה אחוזים מתצרוכת הדלק. נעזוב את זה שמדובר באחוזים גבוהים בהרבה מכמות הדלק שקידוח בים יביא, ושזה פתרון מיידי. נתמקד פשוט בעובדה שזה נכון, ושהקמפיין של מקיין החליט לעשות מזה דאחקה. עד כאן, פוליטיקה כרגיל, לא?
ואובמה לא נשאר חייב, והצליח, בתגובה שלו, לקנות אותי. הוא אמר (תרגום שלי):
אז עכשיו הרפובליקאים מסתובבים… זה סוג הדברים שהם עושים, אני לא מבין את זה… הם מסתובבים ושולחים ונטילים קטנים, לועגים לרעיון הזה, כאילו זו "תכנית האנרגיה של באראק אובמה". עכשיו, שתי נקודות: אחד, הם יודעים שהם משקרים לגבי מהי תכנית האנרגיה שלי; אבל הדבר השני הוא, הם לועגים לצעד שכל מומחה אומר שבהחלט יפחית את צריכת הנפט שלנו בשלושה עד ארבעה אחוזים! זה כאילו… זה כאילו האנשים האלה גאים בבורות[1] שלהם! [...] הם חושבים שזה מצחיק שהם לועגים למשהו, שהוא למעשה נכון. [ההדגשה שלי, נ.א.]
לכאורה, מדובר בעוד פוליטיקאי שמנפנף בידיו וזועק "אני צודק!" כדי שיצביעו עבורו. אבל הדרך כאן חשובה. אובמה לא זועק סתם, הוא יוצא לחלוטין כנגד תרבות הדאחקה. הוא אומר, למעשה, שלמרות שלעג הוא אמצעי לא רע לתעמולה, עניינים רציניים דורשים טיפול רציני. שרדוקציה אד אבסורדום היא לא רק כשל לוגי ואמצעי רטורי לא מוצלח, היא גם לא דרך טובה לקבוע מדיניות. הוא עומד, כמו סבא זועף, ולא מבין מדוע הילדים מסביבו צוחקים, הלוא זה רציני! והרצינות התהומית הזו, שבה אובמה לא מתבייש לומר על הצד השני - לא רק היריב בבחירות, אלא גם תומכיו - שהם בורים מבחירה, שהם לא מבשרים שום שינוי אמיתי כי הם עוסקים בנושאים רק ברמתם התקשורתית; הרצינות הזו היא מה שחסר בפוליטיקה לא רק בארה"ב ובישראל, אלא גם ברוב העולם המערבי.
הדמוקרטיות המערביות הולכות היום בדרך שתביא למשבר. בעוד מספר שנים העולם יצטרך להתמודד עם עובדה אחת פשוטה: שאין אף ממשלה בעולם שנבחרה על ידי מרבית העם עליו היא מושלת, מפני שמרבית האזרחים בדמוקרטיות הפסיקו להצביע. גורמת לזה הציניות ההדדית בתקשורת ובפוליטיקה, גורמת לזה העובדה שכל צד מבטיח שינוי, אבל התנודות הן תמיד קטנות, גורמת לזה ירידת האמון בכוחו של היחיד להשפיע. זו סביבת גידול נוחה לכמיהה האנושית כל כך אבל המפלצתית כל כך ל"מנהיג חזק" מחד ולכל מיני רעיונות עוועים כמו "דמוקרטיה אתונאית" מאידך. בדרך, העולם הופך פחות ופחות ליברלי, כי הצעירים - בסיס המצביעים הליברלי הקלאסי - פשוט לא משתתפים במשחק.
מנהיגים מסוגו של אובמה מדברים על שינוי ולא מתכוונים לחמישה אחוזי מס יותר או פחות. הם מדברים על שינוי ומתכוונים לשנות את האופן שבו הפוליטיקה עובדת. הם מתכוונים לעסוק בנושאים ברצינות, ולא רק בשביל התקשורת; הם מוכנים להגן על עמדות שהתקשורת מציגה ככמעט אבסורדיות - הטענה ששמירה על לחץ אוויר בצמיגים תהיה יעילה יותר מקידוח נפט בים קשה לעיכול עבור האמריקאי הממוצע - כי הן למעשה נכונות; הם לא יורדים למשחק הלכלוכים - לא אובמה הביא את בריטני ספירס ופאריס הילטון[2] למערכה - אבל לא מתביישים לנשוך כשהצד השני מקשקש; הם מבססים את עצמם על עובדות, מחקרים ומומחים, ולא על "זה נראה טוב", סקרים ויועצי תקשורת. אם יש תקווה לדמוקרטיה המודרנית, היא בפוליטיקאים מהזן הזה.
ויותר מזה: בזמן שכל העולם ואחותו, גם פה בארץ, עסוקים בלחשוש שאובמה יעביר כספים וקואורדינטות לארגוני טרור[3], הם שוכחים שעיקר פרנסתן של מדינות איסלאמיות מסוכנות היא נפט. בעולם שבו מחירי הנפט מזנקים בכל פעם ששר התחבורה הישראלי רואה מיקרופון, מרבית כוחם של אלה המתפרעים בשל קריקטורות שמעולם לא ראו מתבסס על העובדה שהם יושבים על מצבורי נפט גדולים. שמעתי פעם בכיר לשעבר ב"משרד ראש הממשלה" אומר בתקשורת שבכל פעם שאנחנו מניעים את האוטו, איראן בונה עוד צנטריפוגה. ויש בזה. יצירת מקורות אנרגיה חלופיים היא לא רק המעשה הנכון סביבתית (ואפילו מאוחר מדי), היא גם הדרך להחליש את כוחם של ארגוני טרור על ידי ייבוש כלכלי. אם יש לך הרבה נפט, אבל אף אחד לא צריך אותו, הכוח שלך מוגבל מאוד.
הרפובליקאים מנסים להפוך את זה. הם מדברים על קידוח נפט בבית, וטוענים שתכנית אובמה למנוע אותו תביא לייבוא של עוד נפט מבחוץ. הם שוכחים, כי זה נוח להם, שאחוז הנפט שהקידוח מבית יביא הוא מזערי לעומת כמות הנפט המיובאת. הם לא מתייחסים לתכנית להפחית את צריכת החשמל בחמש עשרה אחוז (התייעלות חשמלית, קוראים לזה, וזה עובד מצוין בקליפורניה), אלא רק למס על החשמל (תמריץ יוצא מהכלל להתייעלות, אם תשאלו אותי). כמו נציג שירות לקוחות בחברה סלולרית, שמספר לך שתשלם פחות לדקה ובסוף החשבונית גבוהה יותר, הרפובליקאים מסרבים לעשות את החשבון שאם תצרוכת החשמל שלך יורדת והמחיר שאתה משלם פר קילוואט עולה, אתה לא בהכרח מפסיד כסף, ובמקרה הזה אתה אפילו מרוויח.
וזה כל ההבדל בין אובמה לפוליטיקאים אחרים. בזמן שהם משחררים כותרות לתקשורת, גם כאלה המבוססות על כלום, אובמה עושה תכניות לטווח רחוק. יש לו תכניות ל-2015, שנתיים אחרי תום הקדנציה שלו; מתי בפעם האחרונה ראיתם פוליטיקאי מתכנן כל כך רחוק? אמת, הוא יכול להרשות לעצמו לעשות את זה כי יכולות המדיה שלו מרהיבות והוא מצליח לעבור מסך היטב, אבל אל תבלבלו כישורים תקשורתיים עם מדיניות שנקבעת לפי התקשורת.
באראק אובמה מצטייר בתור המועמד הראוי ביותר למשרה הנחשקת מזה זמן רב. עכשיו נשאר רק לקוות שבעולם של ססמאות ותכנון לעיתון של מחר, יש מקום גם לפוליטיקאי כזה, שעוסק במהות.
- ignorance, בהקשר הזה, זה יותר כמו "בורות מרצון", חוסר רצון לדעת [↩]
- התגובה של הילטון, למקרה שפספסתם, היא פשוט מצחיקה [↩]
- כך תזהה בלוג של תומך של הרפובליקאים - הוא משתמש בשמו האמצעי של אובמה, חוסיין, בכל הזדמנות [↩]
אני איתך. סחתיין על ההדגשה של "זה כאילו האנשים האלה גאים בבורות שלהם". הרי זו בדיוק הטענה של הדמוקרטים נגד הרפובליקאים. כשאובאמה עובר דרכה בנונשלנטיות, הוא לא נשמע מתנשא כמו שאל גור נשמע בשעתו*, אבל מעביר את המסר היטב.
* רגע, זה היה קרי או גור שהואשמו בהתנשאות? כלומר, הדמוקרטים כמעט תמיד מואשמים בהתנשאות (חוץ אולי מקלינטון, שהיה קצת friendly hick), אבל זה היה או קרי או גור שטענו נגדו שההתנשאות עלתה לו בנשיאות.
כתבת: "מנהיגים מסוגו של אובמה מדברים על שינוי ולא מתכוונים לחמישה אחוזי מס יותר או פחות. הם מדברים על שינוי ומתכוונים לשנות את האופן שבו הפוליטיקה עובדת". אני הייתי נזהר עם טענות כאלה כרגע. בסוף כולנו נתבדה. עם כל התקווה שיש לי שאובאמה יהיה נשיא מעולה ושונה באופן רדיקאלי מקודמיו, אני פשוט לא מאמין שנשיא אמריקני מסוגל לשנות את הדרך שבה דברים מתנהלים. אני אשמח מאד להיות מופתע, אך אני חושש שאפילו אם אובאמה יזכה בנשיאות, הוא לא יהיה שונה מקודמיו (כלומר, לא ישנה את כללי המשחק מהיסוד).
אגב, ברור לי שבאופן טיפוסי לך נזהרת ודיברת רק על מה שמנהיגים _מסוגו של_ אובמה _מדברים_ עליו. שזה יפה, אבל אם לא סייגת, אז הקורא הטיפוסי (כולל אני) יקרא את המשפט למעלה כ""אובמה יחולל שינוי, לא בחמישה אחוזי מס יותר או פחות, אלא באופן שבו הפוליטיקה עובדת". רק אובזרווציה שנראה לי שלא מתייחסים אליה מספיק: טקסט בבלוג לא נקרא כטקסט פילוסופי.
בנוסף: פרסמת שרשרת של פוסטים מעולים בימים האחרונים. מפאת קוצר זמן לא הספקתי להגיב, אבל תודה על הכתיבה. אני לא יודע אם הוא תמיד היה כך, אבל בכל מקרה, בחודשים האחרונים הבלוג שלך הוא, לדעתי, בין הבלוגים הפוליטיים הטובים ביותר בעברית, ובטח שטוב מרוב מה שמתפרסם בעיתונות. בהצלחה עם שקוף!
אלעד,
זה היה גור. וכן, לאובמה יש כשרון להצביע על תופעות אמריקאיות מוכרות, לתת להן שם קליט ומדויק ולצאת מזה מריח כמו זר שושנים.
אגב, אם אובמה ינצח, גם אם יתבדו תקוותי והוא יהיה נשיא מזעזע, ואני בספק, עצם הנצחון של קמפיין שעוסק במהות יכול לחולל שינוי בדרך שבה עושים פוליטיקה.
ולגבי הסיפא שלך, אני מודה לך בהכנעה. תודה! תרגיש חופשי להצטרף לשקוף, גם מעבר לחומות הצנזורה :)
(אני עוד מחכה. בסבלנות, כמובן).
אני חייב לציין שאני לא מבחין במהות היוצאת דופן אצל אובמה, להפך. לי יש הרגשה שפשוט יש כאן שילוב של אישיות מיוחדת שלא נדבק אליה כלום וקמפיין מעולה. לדעתי זה נראה ומרגיש כמו פרסומת של אפל. מסתבר שלהגיד "אני אהיה שונה מהזקנים" זה מספיק. אם תגיד "תקווה ושינוי מספיק פעמים זה בכלל יהיה טוב. למעשה זה הפך כאן לסוג של מטבע לשון ("אני אעשה את זה כל כך מהר שלא תספיק אפילו להגיד תקווה ושינוי").
אולי זה רק אני אבל אם אתה מוריד את הקמפיין המעולה ,הלוגואים המעוצבים ואת חלקות הלשון אני לא מבדיל בינו לבין פוליטקאי אחר. זה שפוליטיקאים אחרים עושים קצת יותר טעויות ממנו זה לא אומר הרבה. אני בטוח שאם הוא יגיע לבית הלבן הוא יהפוך מהר מאוד לפוליטיקאי כמו כל השאר (לפני שתגיד לוביסטים והלברבטונים)
וגם, מה שאלעד אמר על הכתיבה.
Glancing over your last two posts it is odd to recall that not too long ago you argued passionately that Israel is not falling apart and regardless - the US is the last place in the (western) world to retreat to.
http://www.hahem.co.il/friendsofgeorge/?p=251
I argued that Israel is still better than many other places, for Israeli people especially, and against someone's idea that there's somewhere to which we can flee.
Feel free, though, to distort it.
I think that whether Israel is currently better than the US or not is not the point (although I agree with you that it actually is). The real issue is the prospects for the future. From your last two posts you seem to feel that the prospects for Israel are grim - as you did in May - while the US is moving in a desirable direction. However I may be distorting your responses to "Julie labbe" you surely can't argue that they are well aligned with these ideas. If I wanted to engage in nitpicking I would ask you which of the two is it. Since I don't, I am only making the comment that your aforementioned remarks were not exactly called for.
I see. So if the US is moving in a desirable direction, as you put it, and I will add "Provided Obama wins and turns out to be what he seems to be", whereas Israel is facing crisis, your view is that in such a case Israelis must flee from Israel to the US? Because if that's what you're arguing here, I'll wonder out loud how will the stampede of Israelis to the States affect these prospects. If that\s not what you're claiming, though, I'll have to ask you where is this contradiction you speak of.
While I find your support of Julie heroic and nobel, she made a statement she refused to argue for, ejaculated a sentence she refused to debate or defend, and ran off. I don't do that. I find it out of place when others do, as it doesn't exactly promote an educated discussion - rather, it looks like a talk show.
If I wanted to nitpick, I'd ask you where do you see two points when we're looking at a scale, or maybe suggest that you have another, hidden, interest there. But I don't, so I'll just state again: If you are saying that I claimed that the US will never get better and that Israel will always be stable and that never ever in the history of time will the US become a better place than Israel, on one hand, and/or that from my last two posts the claim is that in near future the US will become a better place than Israel to Israelis, on the other, you are in fact distorting my claims.
אני איתך לגמרי. אבל.. אבל.. "חמש עשרה אחוז"?! גה?
בתוך עמי אני יושב.
אויש, בחייך.
באימא שלי.
זה לא תירוץ. או, לפחות לא תירוץ טוב.
זה לא בעשרת הדיברות או משהו כזה? שמור תשמור על תקינות השפה העברית וכו'?
אה, אם זה בעשרת הדיברות אז בסדר.
כאן, בחלקת האינטרנט הקטנה הזו, יש כלל אחד: אני עושה מה בראש שלי.
"Because if that's what you're arguing here, I'll wonder out loud how will the stampede of Israelis to the States affect these prospects. "
Not exactly what I am arguing. In brief, I am arguing that Israel has a large ( > 1:3) chance of collapsing in the not-too-far (<50 Yrs) future. I am further arguing that on occasion you seem to agree with this assessment. Finally, I am arguing that if you did not forgo any prospects of having children then these odds should be a major worry. As for the US, I don't know if Obama will be elected and I am skeptical of his ability to perform well. Regardless, I am arguing that near-future-annihilation of the US is a very remote possibility. The trickle (rather than stampede) of middle class Israeli's that are retreating to safer countries only makes this prediction a more likely one. This trend is fact and by staying in a sinking (?) ship you will not reverse it. Whther the loss of faith in Israel's viability will add the factor of a self-fulfilling prophecy is a valid question, but any way you look at it it cannot tip the scale in favor of Israel's survival.
"If that\s not what you're claiming, though, I'll have to ask you where is this contradiction you speak of."
Contradiction is a strong term. I'd say it is a rude attack on someone that, bottom line, shares your own assessments and offered friendly advice.
"she made a statement she refused to argue for"
Indeed, but the content was not entirely rubbish despite the lack of explicit argumentation.
"it doesn't exactly promote an educated discussion - rather, it looks like a talk show."
Not necessarily. You don't have to always take the contrarian position. You could (on rare occasions) agree and provide missing arguments yourself. Or just be polite.
"If I wanted to nitpick, I'd ask you where do you see two points when we're looking at a scale,"
I don't understand. If you are asking if I see everything in B&W then the answer is no, but in short responses it does not always come through.
"or maybe suggest that you have another, hidden, interest there."
Like what?! I am actually curious about what rogue thought might have possibly provoked this remark..
"If you are saying that I claimed that the US will never get better and that Israel will always be stable and that never ever in the history of time will the US become a better place than Israel,"
No. See above..
"from my last two posts the claim is that in near future the US will become a better place than Israel to Israelis,"
The last two posts combined convey the notion that you feel that Israel might be on the brink of an imminent disaster and the US not. Obama is more of a second order effect - he can improve things but is not critical for the very survival of the US.
You see? When you explain yourself properly, I understand.
A. I do not think that Israel will cease to exist. Not in the foreseeable future, not in the long run. I wouldn't go as far as to argue that Israel will forever exist, but I wouldn't say that about the UK, the US or any other country.
I do think Israel has a lot of changing to do. I think Israeli society needs to be more mature, less paranoid, less militant, less violent. I think the odds for that are pretty good, not because I have faith in the Israeli society, but because I believe history would tell the tale in a way that would force Israelis to do so.
B. The question of "What will become of Israel in the next 50 years" is the one that interests me. The question of "Whether there will be Israel in 50 years" doesn't concern me at all - I am confident that my children - a figure of speech, really, since you asked, I don't think I'll have any - will have their children here.
C. The question of what will become of Israel is important to me, nonetheless. I will not reside here under any circumstances. When push comes to shove, IF push ever comes to shove, I have alternatives. I cannot give a list of conditions under which I'll feel forced to flee, but much like the classic definition of pornography, I'll know when it will happen. IF it will happen.
D. Thus, I find that fleeing before all was done to save Israel from becoming the kind of place I cannot live in is wrong. No place in the world is perfect. The US is facing problems that are, in my view, just as problematic. Among these I can count teenage violence - and indeed, no high school student started shooting his peers here; I count media decay; I count the large portions of American society that are ignorant by choice, puritan and xenophobic and many more. I don't think that these problem will lead to the collapse of the US, but I do think that the way the American people will deal with their problems in the foreseeable future will determine the character of the US for many years to come.
E. Having said that, I think you can analyse almost any country's politics and find problems of that sort (With, of course, the exception of Denmark. I love that place). Switzerland, I read recently, is dealing with the highest teenage suicide rate in the world. Norway and Sweden are facing a major workforce crisis if they don't start having some babies, preferably yesterday. Sweden is also dealing with high depression levels in the population (Well, it's because they don't have enough sunlight). Italy's political system is slightly less stable than the Israeli one. Germany suffers great economical drawbacks due to EU's performance. France are facing what might become a civil war between immigrants and "True French". Canada is filled with Canadians, some of whom are French. I can go on. These are all dire problems, that may well render these countries unliveable for some in the foreseeable future.
F. For this reason, I will, if at all, leave Israel not the first chance I get, but the last one. This is my home and I intend to stand for it and fight. I also intend to ask more and more people of my sort to stay and do the same. That answers directly to your claim that "This trend is fact and by staying in a sinking (?) ship you will not reverse it". First of all, joining a process I disagree with is not a way to go. Secondly, just by staying, of course I'll achieve nothing. That is why I'm also actively trying to persuade people to stay.
G. I never deemed the negative processes Israel is going through unstoppable, irreparable and/or irreversible. You concluded that on your own. I did mention that they are terminal, for they will lead, if unstopped, to Israel's becoming a place one cannot live in, and I mentioned that to provoke reaction.
H. And here is the main counterpoint between Julie and myself. she claims (If one can call writing something and disappearing into the warm American night a claim) that it's time to go. I say that it is too soon, not in the deterministic sense that eventually it will be time to go, but in the sense that I think a difference can still be made. I wanted to hear why she thought the time was now, but she wouldn't tell me.
I. ". I'd say it is a rude attack on someone that, bottom line, shares your own assessments and offered friendly advice" - So, as you can see, she doesn't share my assessments and her advice is counter productive to my goals. Therefore, whereas "You don't have to always take the contrarian position" is a very true statement, in this case I was on the opposing side.
J. "Like what?! I am actually curious about what rogue thought might have possibly provoked this remark.. " The thought that even intelligent people tend to rationalise, and knowing that you live somewhere that's not Israel (Dare I guess, the US?), you would want to defend the ones who see it as a rational choice.
K. I'd like to hear what in the two posts in question gave you the notion that I thought Israel was irreparable. I'm sure I didn't write this, and I am VERY strict with my choice of words. What in the post about violence gave you the idea that I thought there's no solving it?! I clearly wrote the opposite.
And once again, thank you for taking the time to clarify your position.
This should probably go on but i am not sure if this is thew right venue. You raise many interesting points and I would gladly reply, point by point, at least to those I find the most interesting. I think that there are subtle aspects of the argument that you are completely missing, e.g., issues of time-scales, first passage, practical sides of immigration (more pressing if you are not a dual citizen but existing also if you are), etc.
I also think that expecting not to have children makes the discussion somewhat more theoretical for you - and trust me that I fully understand how deeply you care about Israel when I say this. It is just mostly the case that your patriotic feelings as well as your feelings towards family and friends pale in comparison to what how you find yourself feeling towards a young son/daughter.
I guess that the ball is in your court. Let me know if this is the time to stop, if I should reply here or if there's a third way.
BTW:
1. I can't type in Hebrew when I travel but I can read it fine if it is more convenient for you to write in it.
2. I do live in the states although my decision to extend my stay beyond the requirements of my job was a very recent one.
3. Rest assure that I feel no need to defend my fellow immigrants, nor do I think that they need my defense. I am rationalizing in the sense that I think that my decision was rational, but I was never apologetic about it - Not on behalf of myself and sure as hell not on behalf of others. It would save time for you to just take my word for it when I say that any negative feelings that might cause the rationalization you suggested are just not there.
"I think that there are subtle aspects of the argument that you are completely missing, e.g., issues of time-scales, first passage, practical sides of immigration (more pressing if you are not a dual citizen but existing also if you are), etc" - I'll gladly hear them.
"I also think that expecting not to have children makes the discussion somewhat more theoretical for you" - Dude, huh?! Don't go all Anner Ravon on me. If you argue that your opinion is in any way better than mine because you have kids and I don't and probably won't, we should end this discussion right now, while I still sort of like you.
1. That's fine.
2. All the more.
3. Fine. Really, not that important.
Not arguing that my opinion is "better". Just that on average parents and non-parents are different in ways that affect their reasoning. Lets ignore this side-point, though, from now on.
I'll try to focus on what I think are your weaker arguments. So here: point-by-point answers although brief, incomplete and not edited as the genre dictates:
"A. I do not think that Israel will cease to exist."
Bad wording. We can only talk about oddds. I'll take it that you think that the odds are lower than, say, 5%. So low that an expensive "insurance policy" is not worth the trouble
"I do think Israel has a lot of changing to do."
Yes, but you are ignoring timescales. I may come back to this later. Briefly, there is a timescale for realizing that change is required, a timescale for it to have an effect, a timescale for the damage from pre-changed conditions to accumulate to a point of no return etc. These have to be estimated and compare favorably in order to support this argument.
"B. I am confident "
Well, literally speaking this makes the entire discussion moot, so I wont take this at face value.
"C. I cannot give a list of conditions under which I'll feel forced to flee"
I think that you should think about this more carefully. Unlike pornography, slow gradual processes that might accelerate suddenly can catch you by surprise. If you think the risk is real then you should consider IN ADVANCE what are your "red lines". Then periodically examine how close reality is to them. Besides, if you cannot define even a putative set of conditions/indicators/red-flags even just for the sake of the argument then the discussion will benefit.
"alternatives"
I am assuming that you are alluding to a dual citizenship. This is good but, from a certain age and on, not enough - especially if your other passport is American. There are serious economic issues to be considered. Tiktzar hayeria so I'll leave it at that.
"before all was done to save Israel"
Two problems here:
1. All was done is best defined as a fair estimate that there is a good chance that the point of no return was reached. By definition you cannot do that without reforming your attitude towards points A-C.
2. Honestly estimate the contribution of whatever it is you are doing to the cause of saving Israel. Perhaps you'll be happy with it, perhaps change your mind about it, perhaps realize that you need to do something else.
D-E
This is your weakest argument, perhaps. It actually accentuates Israel dire circumstances because all of the problems you list are either not threatening the survival of the country and/or are much more severe in Israel. A few examples:
Non existence threatening problems (at current levels) are teenage violence in the US (the US is a more complicated story altogether and best left out of the discussion - average levels of anything there are misleading because distributions tend to be bi-modal rather than normal; there is far less violence in Ithaca NY or Boulder CO or Ann-Arbor or.. than anywhere in Israel), suicides in Sweden, economic problems in Germany and Canadians (who I find to be great).
Worse yet, the chances of a civil war in Israel are orders of magnitude greater than in France, and the comparable instability of the political system is far more dangerous in Israel than in Italy. Also, labor problems in Western Europe are by and large the lesser of two evils, where the alternative is a sudden major crisis as I'll try to explain. This touches upon two issues: sticky boundaries (or first passage) and exponential growth.
The first point is simple. Israel is less likely to bounce back from a severe social crisis. If it reaches the point that Albania or Lebanon or Argentina have reached (and Italy might) there are internal and hostile external forces that might not allow it time to bounce back. It therefore cannot afford "Italian-style" instability.
The second point requires numbers and don't hold me to then - I am quoting from memory. Human population was more or less constant for a couple of thousand years. in the last 2-3 centuries it grew exponentially 20-30 fold. Similarly, the percentage of humans+livestock of total biomass (not including various small organisms) jumped from less than 5% to more than 95% in this period. This has to stop. It is what physicists call "unstable" and environmentalists call "not sustainable". There are two extreme scenarios that end exponential growth - a gradual decay into a non-growing phase or a huge crisis', i.e., mass extinction. Obviously it is better to be nearer to the first end of the scale.
Because of geopolitical divides the effects of overpopulation are not even world-wide. The US population is 10 times less dense than Israel's, for instance.
My point is that Israel is particularly BADLY poised in this context:
It is dense and has a rap[id population growth, it is infested with religious conflict and religious people that are prioritizing procreation and xenophobia over tackling pressing survival issues (thereby considerably slowing the timescale for positive change) etc. In fact,. the religious conflicts which you completely ignore make all my points much more acute and solutions much less likely to work in time.
This boils down to a crisis scenario (there are several - no time to go into details) that the ~10M people between the Jordan river and the sea will likely suffer from in a few decades.
Perhaps more later because I have to run..
I too suggest that we leave the whole "You're not a parent" issue out, and not a minute too soon.
A. No, I believe the odds to be closer to null than to 5 per cent. As fat as time scales go, when I say that Israel can still be changed, I'm taking them into consideration.
B. No, I am confident in that.
C. I appreciate the advice, but I do think that constant examination of the state Israel is in and possible future prospects gives me a good-enough picture to decide whether or not I still see hope for this country. As much as I love a lively discussion, I will not commit myself to any red flags I'm unsure of.
My other passport is not American - I am almost offended, really - and I have enough friends and family in the UK to allow me the certainty of an alternative abode.
1. No, all was done means nothing is left to do. I don't think we will reach that stage - like I said, I'm positive that we won't - but IF and when things turn to the worse, I'll know it, and when (IF) I'll feel there's nothing I can do - I'll leave.
2. I do constantly. It's more than a lot of other people, and I'm proud to say I made some difference. Not as much as I'd have liked, but some. I'm not alone in this battle.
D-E
I'm sorry, I completely disagree. By 2030 Sweden will have lost more than 40 per cent of it's workforce; Swiss economy is being severely influenced by teenage suicide rates; Germany starts exercising xenophobia in historically frightening levels due, in part, to the economic fluctuations and Canadian are NOT great, they're dull and they have a quaint accent.
The streets of Paris were burning with the fire of what can only be described as a coo for weeks, Israel still isn't there in any of the numerous conflicts we face. The instability in Italy is in no way less dangerous than the one in Israel, what with public participation in political life plummeting towards the end of democracy there - they have been on the brink of it twice already.
As far as first passage goes, Israel has more than enough strong allies with a distinct interest to keep Israel around. As a matter of fact, if Lebanon still exists, and, to a great extent, is still one of the most progressive Arab countries, Israel has nothing to worry about.
Israel is also not even remotely the most dense country in the world. Palestine, when it should be established, will be quite dense, but that will cease to be Israel's issue. More and more Jews, in Israel and outside of it, are turning their back on the demonic orthodox Judaism; this is a process that will speed up in the coming future. Religion is kicking so hard these days because it's back is against the wall; some say that by 2020 ultra orthodox population will actually reduce in percentage. Religion stops being a factor. a few hundred lunatics will probably not be able to create even an exciting civil war. Sure, a lot of so called secular Jews are still very orthodox, but that weakens as religious leaders are becoming more and more extreme, and they are becoming more extreme because they're loosing the war.
Mafdal lost a great deal of it's power to the non religious Liberman party. Shas is constantly loosing height, Aguda never grows stronger even though their voters have almost twice as many children as the rest of the population. Claiming that Israel's situation is affected by religion shows very little familiarity with reality.
I have limited time slots for browsing these days so I'll try to be brief and focused.
1. Problems in other countries: we totally disagree about the severity and scale of these but this is secondary in comparison to Israel's troubles. Suffice to say that you will be hard pressed to find serious support for the thesis that Sweden/Canada/Germany/Switzerland are on the brink of a major (near) extinction event . Not every economic crisis results in a failed state. To me this seems too obvious to merit further discussion. However, lets agree to disagree here. you should go to Montreal sometime in the spring//summer though. Lovely town.
2. As for your confidence in your convictions: I think that you are dead wrong but it is hard for me to demonstrate that if you are unwilling to discuss (rough) numbers and speculate on red-flags/scenarios. What the discussion will boil down to is you stating your beliefs and me stating my different ones. We've done that already, in fact.
Here's a randomly picked selection of statements I think you are wrong about, to some degree or other:
2a. "Israel has more than enough strong allies with a distinct interest to keep Israel around"
To the very least I would say 'lo leolam hosen'. In fact, I think that Israel has far too few allies even now and their interests are shifting as we speak.
"Lebanon … Israel has nothing to worry about."
Israel has everything to worry about in the context of Lebanon. One not too unlikely road to Israel's demise starts with a Lebanese-like civil war. Your Israel (middle class secular educated and sane) will be the first Israel to be annihilated in the aftermath.
"Palestine, when it should be established"
It is not at all certain that Palestine will be established and that it will EVER be truly separate from Israel. For one, notice that not so many Palestinians even want it. It is likely that the window of opportunity for two states is closing now, for lack interest on the part of the Palestinians among other reasons. If this is the case then the chances that Israel will pick unpleasant elements of the history of countries such as South Africa and Lebanon are large. There is no happy ending to going down this road.
"Israel is also not even remotely the most dense country in the world"
Mt frame of reference is in the Western world, and density is merely half of the problem. The full problem is density, Scarce finite resources and the fastest growth rate (maybe with the exception of the empty US). Dense countries that are not growing like crazy in population are better off in the context of this argument. empty coutries that are growing have time to deal with future problems. The religious conflicts accentuate these problem.
"that will cease to be Israel's issue"
WHY?!
This is not true even if an independent Palestine will magically spring to life. This seems like such an obvious point that I don't know where to start explaining it. Perhaps you should explain your vision of the decoupling of the two societies. If you do then I can refute the details or discuss counter-examples.
"More and more Jews, in Israel and outside of it, are turning their back on the demonic orthodox Judaism"
More and more of them are turning their backs on Judaism period. Especially in the US, the strongest ally from your previous argument. This is one reason why "lo leolam hosen' with the allies an all. (an I say this despite the relative current strengths of the reform community here)
Religion is a problem inside Israel, and it is not only Judaism. It is Judaism and Islam and in particular the 10% extreme versions of on both sides. These are enough to fuel the conflict and distract everybody else from their real problems.
Besides, since resources are final the battle for water/land/etc and the battle for Jehova/allah will fuel each other and become hopelessly untangled. This is usually a bad sign.
"a few hundred lunatics will probably not be able to create even an exciting civil wa"
How do you get from about a million (on all sides - Israeli Palestinian Jewish Muslim) to a few hundreds? what is the mechanism of mass enlightment? How much time does it take it to work?
"Claiming that Israel's situation is affected by religion shows very little familiarity with reality"
I beg to differ but Yossi Gurvitz and others wrote extensively about this.
Have to run again..
A. I never said these countries were on the brink of extinction. I don't think Israel is, too.
B. It's not that I'm unwilling, it's that I can't.
C. Oh, I'm pretty sure the Hosen we have can carry us through the coming couple of decades.
D. I'm not afraid of a civil war. I desire one. I think it's the most immediate and best solution to Israel's major problems, I think rejecting one at all costs is fascism, clear and straight, I know most democracies in the world see their civil war as their finest hour and I am confident that my side is going to win it, being that we are the majority.
E. Palestine and Israel will have to be separated. That's the lesson of Yugoslavia, and to some extent Georgia; that's the lesson from the PQ and recent events in Belgium - dual ethnicity doesn't work. The only question here is the price and the time.
F. Why? for the very same reason density in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt or any other sovereign country is not Israel's problem.
G. The majority of Israeli territory is not even occupied. As for resources, I see no issue. Everything can be brought from outside.
H. I have some different stats, the Reform communities in the States and in Europe are growing constantly.
I. You're not talking about a million even today. There are some 200k settlers, maximum.
J. Gurvitz (And me) talk about the radicalisation, and we oppose it, because we find it evil. But that does not go to say that neither of us thinks religion will take over Israel.
Converging at last..
You have done two things: outline the basic facts/almost-facts we do not agree on (and will not for a while) and flushed out the huge gap between our hopes, or as you put it - desires.
To summarize: your assessment of the chances of the reasonably successful evolution of Israel in the next 50 Yrs is much higher than mine (>99% vs. 40-70%). Your reasons are the confidence in allies (C), confidence in the political and social separation of Palestine from Israel on a reasonably short timescale (E) estimation that this separation will be thorough enough (F) lack of appreciation/acknowledgment of a crisis inducing level of scarcity of resources (G) a belief that religious conflicts are decaying even if not monotonously (H-I) and perhaps other reasons.
I totally disagree on all counts but not in a way that we can bridge via discussion because we seem to disagree on the underlying (pseudo-)facts. To you I might seem wrong and/or pessimistic. To me you seem to be engaged in GROSS wishful-oversimplification of problems like the complex entanglement of Palestinian and Israeli societies (your comparison to Syria etc is bunk), the complexity and far reaching consequences of religious conflicts and the fragility of international support. There are indeed lessons to learn from Yugoslavia and I don't think you are seriously learning them. To top it off you are GROSSLY underestimating the severity of the resource scarcity issue. I would allude to quantitative studies on this issue but they wont convince you. Still, reaching the point where the basics of the dispute are clear is a satisfying achievement. Perhaps one of us will change his mind in days to come.
I left for last your desire for a civil war. Frankly, if you truly mean this then I think that you are nuts. The basic fact is that civil wars are horrors - to be avoided if at all possible and NEVER to be desired.
Ironically enough, your confidence that "your" side is the majority and will "win" is almost as ludicrous as your war fantasy. If you yell "Aharai", start running and pause and look back then chances are you wont see much more behind you than your footprints in the mud (not to mention that even IF you belonged to some imaginary majority that would by no means guaranty a victory in an armed conflict).
Be careful what you wish for because an Israeli civil war is not entirely unlikely. If it does happen your "side" (whoever they are) might loose, together with the other sides no doubt. Should, then, you be granted the opportunity to look at what is left in the ashes I hope that you give it enough thought to not wish for a civil war a second time.
Fine, I'll leave the points you're satisfied with as they are, and just regard the civil war.
Avoiding civil war in any case, regardless of the values and principals one's giving up to do so, means that the highest value one holds is the unity of the nation. Being willing to throw away your every value for the sake of this unity can mean no other thing but that all the other values are less important. That, my reasonable friend, is the essence of fascism.
Civil wars are horrors, just like any war, but one must fight for what one believes in. If two parts of the nation cannot settle their differences, and they reach a conflict that simply cannot be resolved because either side won't give up, then they could either fight for what they believe in, or give up. I already explained why I think fighting is the preferable choice.
"That, my reasonable friend, is the essence of fascism."
Wrong! Alternative reasons are disdain of violence and armed conflict, caution, a belief in the rule of thumb that war is not even a stupid solution and has no winners etc., A conflict that cannot be resolved without a (civil) war can rarely be resolved with it. I'd add that war is a risky path - you may know how it starts but..
Should it happen in the specific case of 21st century Israel then you will lose, your friends will lose and your enemies will lose. Perhaps you will have learned a lesson, though.
This is but the tip of the iceberg of why I cannot accept your rationalization of the "merits" of a civil war.
Enjoyed the discussion, though.
P.S
meant to start the response with how "national unity" is not something I hold in high regard. Not at all.