US recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
Yeah, I mean, I would certainly enjoy seeing Israel have much more diversity.
Why is diversity an end in itself, such that Israel having "much more diversity" is a desirable outcome? It is one thing to say, "This potential immigrant does not share our broad societal identity, but they are willing to comply with our norms, not challenge our prevailing culture, and work to enrich and improve our country," but quite another to say, "We actively want people who differ from our prevailing norms." What does Israel stand to gain from the presence of Hindus, for example? What can Hindus provide for their society that Israeli Jews cannot, such that one ought to actively desire a meaningful Hindu presence?

I want to stress that I'm not suggesting people whose identities differ from the broad norm cannot meaningfully contribute to a society. Rather, it's unclear to me why they should be actively desired in most cases. After all, even if one argues there is enough space in Israel today to accommodate immigration, today is not tomorrow, and Israeli Jews have fertility rates which exceed replenishment levels. Any space one gives away today to foreigners is space which cannot be filled by one's own descendants tomorrow, and the same is doubly true for political space, since the children of those immigrants will be voting, and will feel no less entitled to shape their home society than would anyone else.

I still do not understand why westerners seem to believe diversity is an unmitigated "good." It seems that sometimes it can be beneficial, and sometimes it can be toxic, so surely one must evaluate both on an individual and systematic basis?
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,222
Yeah, I kinda figured you weren't being totally serious, but I wasn't sure.
OTOH, isn't it likely that it will take some "out of the box" thinking to really find a solution here ? There does not seem to be anything "in the box" that has a chance of working.

At this point I don't think there is much to lose in gaming a solution, much like Futurist has been doing this thread. This is what we need to be doing.

Who knows, it may be some strategy that we think is laughable now, but that actually may end up working. Well, at least one can hope.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,222
I still do not understand why westerners seem to believe diversity is an unmitigated "good."
It is a mantra that is drilled into us from kindergarten.

I am not sure I have the willpower to think anything other than diversity is good, diversity is crucial, and etc.

I'll try:

Diversity can be good or b...ba...bbb...a...

...nope, can't do it.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,742
SoCal
Why is diversity an end in itself, such that Israel having "much more diversity" is a desirable outcome? It is one thing to say, "This potential immigrant does not share our broad societal identity, but they are willing to comply with our norms, not challenge our prevailing culture, and work to enrich and improve our country," but quite another to say, "We actively want people who differ from our prevailing norms." What does Israel stand to gain from the presence of Hindus, for example? What can Hindus provide for their society that Israeli Jews cannot, such that one ought to actively desire a meaningful Hindu presence?

I want to stress that I'm not suggesting people whose identities differ from the broad norm cannot meaningfully contribute to a society. Rather, it's unclear to me why they should be actively desired in most cases. After all, even if one argues there is enough space in Israel today to accommodate immigration, today is not tomorrow, and Israeli Jews have fertility rates which exceed replenishment levels. Any space one gives away today to foreigners is space which cannot be filled by one's own descendants tomorrow, and the same is doubly true for political space, since the children of those immigrants will be voting, and will feel no less entitled to shape their home society than would anyone else.

I still do not understand why westerners seem to believe diversity is an unmitigated "good." It seems that sometimes it can be beneficial, and sometimes it can be toxic, so surely one must evaluate both on an individual and systematic basis?
I was operating on the assumption that increased diversity could curtain ethnic or religious chauvinism due to ethnic or religious minorities having more political power. For instance, it would have been much harder for a "Hindu nationalist" such as Modi to get elected in India had India had several hundred million additional Muslims. Ditto for the US--a "White nationalist-lite" candidate such as Trump is going to have lower and lower chances of winning in the future due to the increased diversity in the US.

The point about space is certainly a good one, though. However, this argument could just as easily be extended to American Whites. As in, the more space that non-White immigrants fill up, the less space that there is going to be for American Whites to settle on--which could lower White American fertility relative to what it would have otherwise been.

As a side note, though, Israel currently does appear to be having a brain drain problem and thus accepting smart immigrants (including non-Jewish ones) would help mitigate this problem.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,742
SoCal
The Problem with making a settlement on the bias of superior firepower is the loser of such a settlement learns the lessons what they needed was more guns.

Peace is only possible when both sides agree to cease fighting. Without the agreement of the beaten there is no peace. No matter how superoir the firepower at the time.

Israel has been imposing elements by force from the start.
I agree with this, but at the same time, I really don't see the military balance shifting in the Palestinians' favor anytime soon.

The 1967 lines offer by the Palestinians of breath taking generosity unparalleled in human history.
The 2003 Geneva Initiative (which wasn't an official proposal, but was endorsed by some Palestinians) was even more generous.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,084
I agree with this, but at the same time, I really don't see the military balance shifting in the Palestinians' favor anytime soon.
Psychology, you frame teh whole process around might makes right it's how people think realistic or not.

The 2003 Geneva Initiative (which wasn't an official proposal, but was endorsed by some Palestinians) was even more generous.
No, It was not. giving someone more than half YOUR country is in noyt way comparable to giving someone somewhat less than half your country back.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,862
Republika Srpska
Suppose that the Palestinians said "The Jews must accept that they will not remove Palestine and start recognising it as a sovereign state." Where would that get us?
Fair point. Okay, what about this? Let both sides start making moves towards peace AT THE SAME TIME, so that no side must go first and therefore be seen as "losers". Let Israel start withdrawing from the West Bank and start making moves towards official recognition of Palestine while the Arab states start moving towards official recognition of Israel AS A JEWISH STATE. However, and I think we will agree on this, Hamas needs to go. It is a big obstacle to peace in the region. And after all that, Israel might return the Golan to Syria. As I said, back in 1967, they voted to give it back in exchange for peace, but the Khartoum Resolution put an end to any possible return.
 
Likes: Futurist

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
I was operating on the assumption that increased diversity could curtain ethnic or religious chauvinism due to ethnic or religious minorities having more political power.
If anything, it could exacerbate it. A majority populace can be at its most moderate, compassionate, and magnanimous when it feels entirely in control of its territory. Here in Korea, for example, "multicultural families" are treated with generosity. Why? Precisely because the Korean people at large feel in control: those families are here because the Korean people welcomed them, and the fact that their minor presence is no threat means that there is little corresponding risk with that welcome. By contrast, real tensions could form if a massive influx of foreigners occurred. How do you think Koreans would feel were they forced to pay for the primary and secondary education of millions of foreign children, whose parents simultaneously insisted that the education system be "de-Koreanized" in order to properly accommodate them? How do you think Korean workers would feel if foreigners suddenly became statistically meaningful competition for them, rather than a complement to their labor? I suspect not very happy.

For instance, it would have been much harder for a "Hindu nationalist" such as Modi to get elected in India had India had several hundred millon additional Muslims.
On the other hand, could it not be that a personage like Modi only won because there already are so many Muslims in India? Muslims are what, about 15% of the population? They may well be exactly the irritant which induces Hindus to support "Hindu Nationalism." By contrast, if India were 97% Hindu (for example), tolerance and accommodation may well be somewhat easier. Throw in another several hundred million more Muslims, and you'd probably have an even more tense situation. Hell, you might even end up with a civil war, especially with Pakistan as a neighbor which holds ambitions regarding some Indian territory.

Ditto for the US--a "White nationalist-lite" candidate such as Trump is going to have lower and lower chances of winning in the future due to the increased diversity in the US.
And again, increasing diversity, increasing pro-diversity ideology, and increasing hostility towards "majority" culture probably played a non-trivial role in people turning to a candidate like Trump. Likewise, an influx of migrants into Europe has evidently resulted in at least some rise in right-wing ideology of a similar character. I'm not going to say these factors are the only cause at work here -- there are definitely others, especially the side effects of economic globalism -- but there seems to be a correlation.

The point about space is certainly a good one, though. However, this argument could just as easily be extended to American Whites. As in, the more space that non-White immigrants fill up, the less space that there is going to be for American Whites to settle on--which could lower White American fertility relative to what it would have otherwise been.
Yes, that argument could have been made by American Whites, and it would have been valid. Instead, American Whites chose to give up that space, and now they're going to have to live with the long-term consequences. The fact that a non-trivial portion of them seem unhappy with those consequences may provide a lesson relevant to this topic, since once you let the "genie of diversity" out of its bottle, putting it back in without resorting to violent atrocity is very, very difficult.

As a side note, though, Israel currently does appear to be having a brain drain problem and thus accepting smart immigrants (including non-Jewish ones) would help mitigate this problem.
Perhaps so in limited measure, but on the other hand, going to far in importing foreign high-achievers to compete with your domestic population for high status, high compensation employment may exacerbate the situation even further. Your worst case scenario is to spend nearly three decades of one of your citizen's life training them through an advanced qualification only for them to be unable to find adequate employment due to excessive competition, after all. Think about the toxic situation in American academia, for example, where many highly qualified individuals are working for a pittance and have no job security because the labor market for what they provide is essentially flooded. Moreover, it's easy to forget that luring in highly qualified immigrants comes at the cost of inflicting "brain drain" upon another country instead, which is hardly equitable or ideal on a global scale. Someone has to stand up and do the hard work of adequately training and retaining their own citizens, and there's no reason that someone can't be Israel, since at least Israel is economically positioned to provide incentives to retain its people.
 
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2011
2,207
Fair point. Okay, what about this? Let both sides start making moves towards peace AT THE SAME TIME, so that no side must go first and therefore be seen as "losers". Let Israel start withdrawing from the West Bank and start making moves towards official recognition of Palestine while the Arab states start moving towards official recognition of Israel AS A JEWISH STATE. However, and I think we will agree on this, Hamas needs to go. It is a big obstacle to peace in the region. And after all that, Israel might return the Golan to Syria. As I said, back in 1967, they voted to give it back in exchange for peace, but the Khartoum Resolution put an end to any possible return.
Most of what you write there is eminently sensible. For example "Let Israel start withdrawing from the West Bank and start making moves towards official recognition of Palestine". But Maki, you don't seem to grasp the political realities here. During Barack Obama's presidency, his policy was to politely and diplomatically ask Israel to reduce tensions by not building ADDITIONAL settlement houses in the West Bank (there was no suggestion that Israel might withdraw from the West Bank, oh good heavens no). Israel pointedly ignored him by building yet more settlements. Israel seems to have a policy of making no concessions at all, because there is no pressure on it to do so.
The second part of your sentence is "while the Arab states start moving towards official recognition of Israel AS A JEWISH STATE ". Well, Jordan does recognise Israel. There are about 16 Arab countries, are we to wait for all of them to recognise Israel before Israel makes any concessions? In my view, the actual dispute is between Israel and the Palestinians. Getting the opinion right of 16 other countries is too complex a task, and ultimately not needed. The Palestinians have already recognised Israel. If only Israel would recognise Palestine, that would be a huge step forward. But Israel WILL NOT recognise Palestine because it wants that West Bank land for itself.

"However, and I think we will agree on this, Hamas needs to go. "
I say we should focus on the West Bank. If Israel would stop stealing land there and assign larger areas to Palestinian jurisdiction, it might get through to the people of Gaza that they can negotiate with Israel and get fair treatment. As it is, Hamas is strengthened by Israeli policy of shooting Gazan fishermen operating in their own waters, and killing unarmed people within Gaza.
 
Likes: Futurist