What if we got rid of the nation-state?

Michael Lumish

There is much dislike for "nationalism" on the progressive-left because -- due to World War II and the Nazis -- they generally equate it with fascism.

But what we call nationalism is the basis of the modern international system usually attributed by historians to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

So, how would a world without nation-states -- which is to say, without nationalism -- function? I can think of two possibilities, although surely there must be others.

One would be an international series of anarchist groupings, small independent townships and farming communities. Sort of like a world made up of an endless series of kibbutzim. The likelihood of any such thing emerging is virtually zero and hardly something that would benefit humanity.

The other alternative is considerably worse. It would mean a one-world government, presumably executed by the United Nations. In other words, the result would be global authoritarianism.

Those of you calling for open borders are calling for precisely that because nations do not exist with open borders. Nations are defined geographically precisely by borders.

If you can think of any other alternatives beyond the nation-state, I would love to hear.

Elizabeth Warren Spits at AIPAC

Michael Lumish

The Jerusalem Post headline reads, "Elizabeth Warren says she will skip the AIPAC conference".

AIPAC is a politically neutral organization.

Its sole purpose is to represent the Jewish State to the American government and the American people. It is an entirely non-partisan organization and it is an entirely American organization.

If Warren boycotts AIPAC it demonstrates not only hostility to the Jewish State of Israel, but to American and Jewish American supporters of Israel.

This is something that no self-respecting Jewish person, or friend of, should accept.

This is a move that tells me that Elizabeth Warren is no friend to the Jewish people.

There is no good bigotry

Sar Shalom

One of the harshest insults used in contemporary society is "Bigot!" In general, any form of bigotry is considered by society to be a bad form of bigotry, whether the target is based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, or socioeconomic status.

However, society seems to cut out one category as an exception to this rule that all bigotry is bad. That exception is any bigotry by or on behalf of any marginalized community directed and those who are its "oppressors." Two common examples of that category are left-wing and Islamist bigotry directed at Jews and those who support Jewish self-determination.

The message must be simple and clear. THERE IS NO GOOD BIGOTRY!

The Stupid Arab League

Doodad

After initial encouraging reports that Arab states were supporting the Deal of the Century, the Arab League rejected it.

All three nations — Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates — on Saturday backed an Arab League decision that rejected the US plan, seemingly dashing any hopes the administration may have had of Arab support for its efforts......“These are clauses no Arab or Islamic nation could agree to, so in the end the foreign ministers aligned with the position opposed to the Trump plan.”

The clauses of which they speak, of course, are Islam related: a feeling that the US was promoting a change in the status quo. And therein is the rub. The Islam factor. The mere thought that Jews might trump (no pun intended) Muslims is too much to bear and the all encompassing nail in the coffin of all and every so called peace plan. And as much sense as a prosperous Palestinian state makes to westerners, it ignores the Islam factor and the honor/shame culture Islam creates.

Everyone thought Arab states were coming around and they feared Iran more than anything until it all hit that brick wall;Islam. Kushner told the Palestinians to give up "fairy tales," for peace totally unaware of the terrifying and stupefying pull of the Islam factor.

And so it goes, eternally. Oh BTW, the Arab League rejection was UNANIMOUS. Big surprise.

NOTE: didnt want to start a whole new thread just for this so....added this neat cartoon here. I just know Vindman and Greta probably love them some cuddly Palestinians.

Michael Lumish

The old joke goes something like this.

Two Jewish men are sitting on a park bench in Berlin during the mid-1930s. One is reading Der Stürmer. The other turns to him and says, "Why are you reading that antisemitic Nazi rag?"

The man replies, "Because when I read the Jewish press they talk about how we live under oppression and the Germans want us dead. However, when I read Der Stürmer I learn that we rule the world. It makes me feel much better."

An Alternative Solution

Michael Lumish

{Also published at Jews Down Under and the Elder of Ziyon.}

Enno Raschke is a researcher and historian for Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Center in Jerusalem. I am happy to say that we occasionally cross swords, but I respect the guy. It is, after all, difficult for me not to respect a historian with Yad Vashem.

On Facebook, I recently put out a brief note claiming that "The two-state solution is dead. Get over it."

This seems pretty self-evident at this point, but people -- particularly Jews -- will always disagree about almost anything. Enno responded in a way that I consider entirely reasonable. He wrote:

People who say "The Two State Solution is dead" never have a credible, doable alternative solution (as in: one that is acceptable for people outside of their own political bubble). And as long as that remains the case, the 2SS is not dead.

This is a core question among those of us who care about the Jewish people and the Jewish State of Israel.

Enno seems to think that there is no other possibility than continuing to pursue a two-state solution that the Arabs have rejected since at least the Peel Commission of 1937. That is to say, he refuses to take "no" for an answer. He wants us to go on and on and on requesting peace while the Arabs always refuse.

What I am considering is more along the lines of Caroline Glick and Martin Sherman. It is one possible answer to Enno's question. Annex Judea - Samaria, up to the Jordan River. Those hillsides above Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are traditional Jewish land. The Arabs, along with others, conquered it, but the Jews are the only extant indigenous people to that land. That is our land and we should not respect the rights of conquerors to steal it from us, particularly within living memory of the Holocaust (Shoah).

There are two major fears concerning the Jewish annexation of Jewish land. The first is demographic and the second is international reaction. What I propose -- with some modesty, thank you -- is that Israel annex Judea - Samaria up to the Jordan. The demographic problem need not be a problem if it is dealt with in a straightforward manner. A reasonable percentage of non-Israelis who live on that land would need to be interviewed. Those who despise Jews would need to move elsewhere. Those who do not express any such hatred would need, just like Jewish citizens of Israel, to do a few years of national service. Those who complete that service with good report should be offered Israeli citizenship.

The international reaction to a Jewish annexation of Jewish land is more complex. Western-Europe, the European Union, the United Nations, and the Democratic Party leadership essentially despise the Jewish people and our state. If Israel were to annex our own land they would throw a fit. But if we fail to do so in coming years than we will never be able to do so and we will remain forever back on our feet. We will always be at the mercy of Europeans who think that persecuting Jews is a matter of "social justice" and Arabs and Muslims who simply want us dead or gone from our own historical homeland.

But if there was any a moment in recent Jewish history to claim our land, now is probably the time. Not only do we have an ally in the White House, but we have greater economic, technological, medical, scientific, and diplomatic reach than in any time in Jewish history.

What I would suggest to my friend, Enno, despite the fact that I am sitting in my perch in northern California, is that perhaps now is the time for bold action.