Trump may say that Iran is 'mostly incapable', but this extract from today's UK Guardian begs to differ:
Experts say it will be extremely difficult for the US to reopen the strait through military means alone as long as Iran retains the ability to hit or harass shipping with missiles, drones or small boats.
My italics.
Granted, it's hard to know exactly what the actual state of the Iranian navy might be, but I note that the US hasn't sent any 'War Ships' (yet), despite asking other countries to do so...
Trump may say that Iran is 'mostly incapable', but this extract from today's UK Guardian begs to differ:
Experts say it will be extremely difficult for the US to reopen the strait through military means alone as long as Iran retains the ability to hit or harass shipping with missiles, drones or small boats.
My italics.
Granted, it's hard to know exactly what the actual state of the Iranian navy might be, but I note that the US hasn't sent any 'War Ships' (yet), despite asking other countries to do so...
One of the things best illustrated by the Russia-Ukraine war is the way that warfare, especially relatively short-range warfare, has shifted from moderately expensive missiles to dirt-cheap armed drones. This seems to be something that the U.S. has not fully adjusted its strategic thinking to accommodate. More relevantly to the current discussion, there does not seem to be anything the U.S. is currently willing to do that would prevent Iran from replenishing its supply of Shaheds to a level that commercial maritime traffic would feel uncomfortable risking. A Shahed drone has a range of 1,000 km to 2,000 km, depending on design and payload, meaning that a Shahed launched from anywhere inside Iran's current territory will be able to reach the Straits of Hormuz.
The illogic of the Nakba is an ongoing catastrophe for Palestinians and an ongoing disaster for Jews and for Israel.
Well, it's 'worked' in the sense that it's something that every ally of Israel has largely ignored for the last 70+ years, and defacto accepted the facts on the ground that it created.
In many important respects, it hasn't worked at all.
However, in the utopia of Altneuland, there is no partition. The arguments proposed by Dr Geyer, a Jewish Nationalist, are defeated in a democratic election. From the Jewish Journal (December 2022):
The whole text is widely available, as are Herzl's private writings, I think you should engage with that rather than depend on selective quotations from people employing motivated reasoning to come to the conclusion that it represented some kind of utopia.
I'm using the word "utopia" because that's the genre of fiction to which the book belongs, and it's the word many commentators use to describe the book. For example, the wikipedia entry starts:
The Old New Land (German: Altneuland; Yiddish: אַלטנײַלאַנד, romanized: Altnayland) is a utopian novel published in German by Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, in 1902.
The illogic of the Nakba is an ongoing catastrophe for Palestinians and an ongoing disaster for Jews and for Israel.
Well, it's 'worked' in the sense that it's something that every ally of Israel has largely ignored for the last 70+ years, and defacto accepted the facts on the ground that it created.
In many important respects, it hasn't worked at all.
Let's go back to your original post:
"I would say majority-Jewish - a nation where Jews would never again be in a minority."
Ensuring that was always going to lead to any significant population of Palestinians being viewed as a demographic threat (doubly so when the original partition created a state in which 45% of the population was Palestinian).
However, in the utopia of Altneuland, there is no partition. The arguments proposed by Dr Geyer, a Jewish Nationalist, are defeated in a democratic election. From the Jewish Journal (December 2022):
The whole text is widely available, as are Herzl's private writings, I think you should engage with that rather than depend on selective quotations from people employing motivated reasoning to come to the conclusion that it represented some kind of utopia.
I'm using the word "utopia" because that's the genre of fiction to which the book belongs, and it's the word many commentators use to describe the book. For example, the wikipedia entry starts
If you want to discuss the literary merits of the work I'm sure another thread could be created. Back to your original post:
But aspects of the modern state of Israel only partially embody Theodor Herzl's original vision, as expressed in the novel
Trump may say that Iran is 'mostly incapable', but this extract from today's UK Guardian begs to differ:
Experts say it will be extremely difficult for the US to reopen the strait through military means alone as long as Iran retains the ability to hit or harass shipping with missiles, drones or small boats.
My italics.
Granted, it's hard to know exactly what the actual state of the Iranian navy might be, but I note that the US hasn't sent any 'War Ships' (yet), despite asking other countries to do so...
One of the things best illustrated by the Russia-Ukraine war is the way that warfare, especially relatively short-range warfare, has shifted from moderately expensive missiles to dirt-cheap armed drones. This seems to be something that the U.S. has not fully adjusted its strategic thinking to accommodate. More relevantly to the current discussion, there does not seem to be anything the U.S. is currently willing to do that would prevent Iran from replenishing its supply of Shaheds to a level that commercial maritime traffic would feel uncomfortable risking. A Shahed drone has a range of 1,000 km to 2,000 km, depending on design and payload, meaning that a Shahed launched from anywhere inside Iran's current territory will be able to reach the Straits of Hormuz.
Yes. I see that the UK is considering sending mine-sweeping drones to help 'free' the Strait.
The 'Law of Unintended Consequences' springs to mind in all of this.
One of Trump's aims in Venezuela and now in the Gulf appears to be to stop oil reaching China. Some 87% of China's oil comes from the Middle-East I think.
This will hurt Beijing but may open up closer ties between Xi and Putin as China looks for alternative sources.
Has Trump factored that into his plans?
His hankering after Greenland will be linked to this of course, to interfere with any attempts Russia and China make to use an alternative northern route.
I have no time for either Putin or Xi but am finding Hegseth's posturings nauseating when hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed and Trump's sense of entitlement that he can start a war and expect his NATO allies to jump to heel.
This isn't why NATO was founded.
The US helped with intelligence and some resources when the UK went to war with Argentina but didn't bomb Buenos Aires.
There doesn't appear to have been any prior consultation with any of the US's allies other than Israel and although Putin and Xi will hypocritically bleat about international law, it's pretty clear that Trump has stepped outside of that and couldn't care less.
This will hurt Beijing but may open up closer ties between Xi and Putin as China looks for alternative sources.
Has Trump factored that into his plans?
Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that Trump is acting according to some plan. What we seem to be seeing in the U.S. war against Iran is a combination operational excellence combined with strategic incompetence.
… Israel was specifically created to be Jewish-only.
I would say majority-Jewish - a nation where Jews would never again be in a minority.…
I was pointing out that my understanding is that Israel wasn't created to be Jewish-only, but majority-Jewish.
Ensuring that was always going to lead to any significant population of Palestinians being viewed as a demographic threat (doubly so when the original partition created a state in which 45% of the population was Palestinian).
Indeed. It is self-evident that two people-groups occupying the same geographical area cannot both avoid being in a minority.
I'm using the word "utopia" because that's the genre of fiction to which the book belongs, and it's the word many commentators use to describe the book.
If you want to discuss the literary merits of the work I'm sure another thread could be created. Back to your original post:
But aspects of the modern state of Israel only partially embody Theodor Herzl's original vision, as expressed in the novel
Is a much stronger - real world - claim.
It doesn't seem controversial to recognise that fictional literature can inspire real-world courses of action, or that real-world issues are often addressed in fictional settings. The distinction you appear to be making seems rather arbitrary to me.
I think that considering the two things together illustrates that no utopian vision survives contact with reality. (Somewhat by definition, given the literal meaning of "utopia".) I also have in mind the saying that “no plan survives contact with the enemy”, which seems unfortunately apt.
This will hurt Beijing but may open up closer ties between Xi and Putin as China looks for alternative sources.
Has Trump factored that into his plans?
Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that Trump is acting according to some plan. What we seem to be seeing in the U.S. war against Iran is a combination operational excellence combined with strategic incompetence.
Yes, I should have put the word 'plans' in scare-quotes.
What I meant though was that there does seem to be an over-arching aim - if not an actual strategy as such.
Hitting Iran hurts both Russia and China, helps Israel and also gives him the opportunity to brow-beat his allies.
That's the aim.
Whether there is a clear strategy to achieve that is very much open to question.
Trump does tend to send out scatter-gun messages to make it harder for pundits and world-leaders to catch-up. It's a strategy he has pursued more fully during his second term.
Say something daft to get everyone talking and to deflect them from whatever he goes on to do next. Yes, I do think he is making it all up as he goes along but within a general framework which he believes is in his own and America's best interests. The two are coterminous in Trump's world-view.
I was pointing out that my understanding is that Israel wasn't created to be Jewish-only, but majority-Jewish.
Ensuring that was always going to lead to any significant population of Palestinians being viewed as a demographic threat (doubly so when the original partition created a state in which 45% of the population was Palestinian).
Indeed. It is self-evident that two people-groups occupying the same geographical area cannot both avoid being in a minority.
? I wasn't claiming that the impossible could be achieved. The 45% figure is important because the wording that precedes it. Indeed, Ben-Gurion is on record as saying at the time that: "In this composition there is not even absolute certainty that the government will be governed by a Jewish majority. There can be no stable Jewish state as long as there is a Jewish majority of only 60 percent."
It was the logic of ensuring a permanent majority that was the basis of the Nabka and subsequent expulsions.
It doesn't seem controversial to recognise that fictional literature can inspire real-world courses of action, or that real-world issues are often addressed in fictional settings. The distinction you appear to be making seems rather arbitrary to me.
I think that considering the two things together illustrates that no utopian vision survives contact with reality. (Somewhat by definition, given the literal meaning of "utopia".) I also have in mind the saying that “no plan survives contact with the enemy”, which seems unfortunately apt.
I am making the distinction because this conflates a literary utopia with a political one (the implicit claim of the jewish journal article). There may have been a handful of people who thought that Altneuland represented a desirable end state. The man who wrote "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country." was not one of them. Neither were any of the actors in 1947/1948. Neither was his vision the singular one behind Zionism. Bringing up a bit of speculative fiction he wrote in this context simply serves to obscure reality.
A NPR news commentator made a good point this morning, saying that the reason Hegseth is heading for disaster is that he can only comprehend tactics: specifically, individual events that make a loud bang. The concept of strategy is unknown to him, and in any case he doesn't need it - his job is keep his boss excited and happy.
Hegseth should be impeached and referred to the International Criminal Court as an alleged war criminal. Of course, that will not happen since the US never signed the applicable accords. However, Spain has been known to take up similar cases.
It doesn't seem controversial to recognise that fictional literature can inspire real-world courses of action, or that real-world issues are often addressed in fictional settings. The distinction you appear to be making seems rather arbitrary to me.
I think that considering the two things together illustrates that no utopian vision survives contact with reality. (Somewhat by definition, given the literal meaning of "utopia".) I also have in mind the saying that “no plan survives contact with the enemy”, which seems unfortunately apt.
I am making the distinction because this conflates a literary utopia with a political one (the implicit claim of the jewish journal article). There may have been a handful of people who thought that Altneuland represented a desirable end state. The man who wrote "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country." was not one of them. Neither were any of the actors in 1947/1948. Neither was his vision the singular one behind Zionism. Bringing up a bit of speculative fiction he wrote in this context simply serves to obscure reality.
I can't tell what aspect of reality you think is being obscured. But the significance of Altneuland appears to be rather greater than suggested by your references to "a handful of people" and "a bit of speculative fiction".
Theodor Herzl’s Altneuland (Old-New Land) is a bad novel, but an important and prescient book. It addresses three issues that are today at the core of Israel’s politics and public discourse: the question of equal citizenship, the social and economic structure of the country, and the relations between state and religion.
When the novel was published exactly one hundred and ten years ago in 1902, Herzl was already the leader of the Zionist movement. …
When Herzl published his novel he could rightly claim—as he did in his preface—that this was not a mere utopian dream, but a projection into the future of a historical enterprise that had already begun to be realized.
Within a few years, the novel was translated into English, Russian, French, Polish, Hebrew, Yiddish, and, eventually, Ladino. Though its characters were flat and its dialogue mostly wooden, it was the most popular and widely circulated articulation of the Zionist vision. …
It is this interface between literary creativity and historical agency that continues to give the novel its topicality even today. Zionism is the rare national movement that produced not only manifestos, programs, and declarations about its cause, but a document describing in detail what its ultimate goal would look like.
Both Hegseth and Vance have been critical in the past about US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.
All of a sudden they've become Trump sock-puppets.
It ain't going to be easy to clear the Straits of Hormuz of mines and nobody seems to be in a hurry to do so without a game-plan.
Trump will interpret that as 'disloyalty' and lash out at America's friends and allies, not just Starmer but Japan, Germany, South Korea and everyone else who isn't rushing over there without an exit-strategy or any thought-through plan.
If he'd any sense he'd have consulted his allies first instead of launching an illegal attack and expecting everyone else to join in on his say-so.
A surprise attack is one thing but if you're going to do that at least ensure that you have the follow-up in place.
It's a bit like Suez in the sense that Britain and France weren't expecting any kick-back from the US when it seized the Canal Zone.
This time the US has gone in all guns blazing and expects everyone else to get on board.
Harold Wilson stood up to LBJ over Vietnam.
This time I don't think we can avoid being drawn in. I have no doubt Trump is misrepresenting what Starmer is actually saying.
Which is par for the course.
He started this war and now wants everyone else to share the responsibility.
Clearing the strait of mines only makes sense if the Iranian navy is incapable of replacing them. Otherwise you're putting minesweeping ships in the line of fire of drones and missiles (and, hence at risk of being sunk) or the fast attack boats Iran is known to have, only to have mines back again the next day.
If the Iranian claim that ships from nations not at war with them can safely pass the Strait of Hormuz is accurate, then that would suggest the straits are not mined anyway. AFAIK all the ships that have been hit so far have been hit by drones, missiles or naval ships, not mines. I suspect that the Iranian government want to keep as many nations on their side, or at least against Israel/USA, as possible and having options to allow friendly ships through the Straits of Hormuz helps that - mines, which don't know what flag ships are flying, remove that option.
It doesn't seem controversial to recognise that fictional literature can inspire real-world courses of action, or that real-world issues are often addressed in fictional settings. The distinction you appear to be making seems rather arbitrary to me.
I think that considering the two things together illustrates that no utopian vision survives contact with reality. (Somewhat by definition, given the literal meaning of "utopia".) I also have in mind the saying that “no plan survives contact with the enemy”, which seems unfortunately apt.
I am making the distinction because this conflates a literary utopia with a political one (the implicit claim of the jewish journal article). There may have been a handful of people who thought that Altneuland represented a desirable end state. The man who wrote "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country." was not one of them. Neither were any of the actors in 1947/1948. Neither was his vision the singular one behind Zionism. Bringing up a bit of speculative fiction he wrote in this context simply serves to obscure reality.
I can't tell what aspect of reality you think is being obscured.
The reality of actually existing Israeli and the occupation is being obscured by playing up the suggestion that a sanitised version of Altneuland (again, the entire text is available) was the aim of a significant number of those involved in the events of 47/48.
But the significance of Altneuland appears to be rather greater than suggested by your references to "a handful of people" and "a bit of speculative fiction".
You'd be hard pressed to find its influence in the thought and writings of any other foundational figure or even the rest of the writings of Herzl himself. It serves the purposes of those who want to whitewash the reputation of Herzl and by extension the events surrounding the foundation of the state to concentrate on one of his works to the exclusion of all else. The piece you quote is no exception, to pick one immediately glaring example:
"The fact remains, however, that upon declaring independence Israel granted citizenship and voting rights to those Palestinians who remained within its borders, maintained Arabic as its second official language, and allowed Arab citizens to send their children to state schools where the instruction was in Arabic and within a framework of a curriculum respecting—albeit perhaps insufficiently—Arab culture and history. "
Which is highly economical - Palestinian Arabs within Israel were under military law between 1948 and 1966.
There were early Zionists like Martin Buber who were fervent believers in binationalism and a federal solution, but they were marginalised and came to their beliefs independently of Herzl.
Israel is, I think, widely thought to have a nuclear weapon.
So if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon also then wouldn't Mutual Assured Destruction ("MAD") ensure they never use them against each other? Like India and Pakistan.
Comments
“as long at Iran retains the ability”
‘nuff said.’
For the moment, they seem to be retaining some abilities, at least, but, of course, that may change.
One of the things best illustrated by the Russia-Ukraine war is the way that warfare, especially relatively short-range warfare, has shifted from moderately expensive missiles to dirt-cheap armed drones. This seems to be something that the U.S. has not fully adjusted its strategic thinking to accommodate. More relevantly to the current discussion, there does not seem to be anything the U.S. is currently willing to do that would prevent Iran from replenishing its supply of Shaheds to a level that commercial maritime traffic would feel uncomfortable risking. A Shahed drone has a range of 1,000 km to 2,000 km, depending on design and payload, meaning that a Shahed launched from anywhere inside Iran's current territory will be able to reach the Straits of Hormuz.
Let's go back to your original post:
Ensuring that was always going to lead to any significant population of Palestinians being viewed as a demographic threat (doubly so when the original partition created a state in which 45% of the population was Palestinian).
If you want to discuss the literary merits of the work I'm sure another thread could be created. Back to your original post:
Is a much stronger - real world - claim.
Yes. I see that the UK is considering sending mine-sweeping drones to help 'free' the Strait.
One of Trump's aims in Venezuela and now in the Gulf appears to be to stop oil reaching China. Some 87% of China's oil comes from the Middle-East I think.
This will hurt Beijing but may open up closer ties between Xi and Putin as China looks for alternative sources.
Has Trump factored that into his plans?
His hankering after Greenland will be linked to this of course, to interfere with any attempts Russia and China make to use an alternative northern route.
I have no time for either Putin or Xi but am finding Hegseth's posturings nauseating when hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed and Trump's sense of entitlement that he can start a war and expect his NATO allies to jump to heel.
This isn't why NATO was founded.
The US helped with intelligence and some resources when the UK went to war with Argentina but didn't bomb Buenos Aires.
There doesn't appear to have been any prior consultation with any of the US's allies other than Israel and although Putin and Xi will hypocritically bleat about international law, it's pretty clear that Trump has stepped outside of that and couldn't care less.
Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that Trump is acting according to some plan. What we seem to be seeing in the U.S. war against Iran is a combination operational excellence combined with strategic incompetence.
It doesn't seem controversial to recognise that fictional literature can inspire real-world courses of action, or that real-world issues are often addressed in fictional settings. The distinction you appear to be making seems rather arbitrary to me.
I think that considering the two things together illustrates that no utopian vision survives contact with reality. (Somewhat by definition, given the literal meaning of "utopia".) I also have in mind the saying that “no plan survives contact with the enemy”, which seems unfortunately apt.
Yes, I should have put the word 'plans' in scare-quotes.
What I meant though was that there does seem to be an over-arching aim - if not an actual strategy as such.
Hitting Iran hurts both Russia and China, helps Israel and also gives him the opportunity to brow-beat his allies.
That's the aim.
Whether there is a clear strategy to achieve that is very much open to question.
Trump does tend to send out scatter-gun messages to make it harder for pundits and world-leaders to catch-up. It's a strategy he has pursued more fully during his second term.
Say something daft to get everyone talking and to deflect them from whatever he goes on to do next. Yes, I do think he is making it all up as he goes along but within a general framework which he believes is in his own and America's best interests. The two are coterminous in Trump's world-view.
Putin has his equivalent.
? I wasn't claiming that the impossible could be achieved. The 45% figure is important because the wording that precedes it. Indeed, Ben-Gurion is on record as saying at the time that: "In this composition there is not even absolute certainty that the government will be governed by a Jewish majority. There can be no stable Jewish state as long as there is a Jewish majority of only 60 percent."
It was the logic of ensuring a permanent majority that was the basis of the Nabka and subsequent expulsions.
I am making the distinction because this conflates a literary utopia with a political one (the implicit claim of the jewish journal article). There may have been a handful of people who thought that Altneuland represented a desirable end state. The man who wrote "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country." was not one of them. Neither were any of the actors in 1947/1948. Neither was his vision the singular one behind Zionism. Bringing up a bit of speculative fiction he wrote in this context simply serves to obscure reality.
As Shlomo Avineri put it in the Jewish Review of Books in 2012:
All of a sudden they've become Trump sock-puppets.
It ain't going to be easy to clear the Straits of Hormuz of mines and nobody seems to be in a hurry to do so without a game-plan.
Trump will interpret that as 'disloyalty' and lash out at America's friends and allies, not just Starmer but Japan, Germany, South Korea and everyone else who isn't rushing over there without an exit-strategy or any thought-through plan.
If he'd any sense he'd have consulted his allies first instead of launching an illegal attack and expecting everyone else to join in on his say-so.
A surprise attack is one thing but if you're going to do that at least ensure that you have the follow-up in place.
It's a bit like Suez in the sense that Britain and France weren't expecting any kick-back from the US when it seized the Canal Zone.
This time the US has gone in all guns blazing and expects everyone else to get on board.
Harold Wilson stood up to LBJ over Vietnam.
This time I don't think we can avoid being drawn in. I have no doubt Trump is misrepresenting what Starmer is actually saying.
Which is par for the course.
He started this war and now wants everyone else to share the responsibility.
If the Iranian claim that ships from nations not at war with them can safely pass the Strait of Hormuz is accurate, then that would suggest the straits are not mined anyway. AFAIK all the ships that have been hit so far have been hit by drones, missiles or naval ships, not mines. I suspect that the Iranian government want to keep as many nations on their side, or at least against Israel/USA, as possible and having options to allow friendly ships through the Straits of Hormuz helps that - mines, which don't know what flag ships are flying, remove that option.
The reality of actually existing Israeli and the occupation is being obscured by playing up the suggestion that a sanitised version of Altneuland (again, the entire text is available) was the aim of a significant number of those involved in the events of 47/48.
You'd be hard pressed to find its influence in the thought and writings of any other foundational figure or even the rest of the writings of Herzl himself. It serves the purposes of those who want to whitewash the reputation of Herzl and by extension the events surrounding the foundation of the state to concentrate on one of his works to the exclusion of all else. The piece you quote is no exception, to pick one immediately glaring example:
"The fact remains, however, that upon declaring independence Israel granted citizenship and voting rights to those Palestinians who remained within its borders, maintained Arabic as its second official language, and allowed Arab citizens to send their children to state schools where the instruction was in Arabic and within a framework of a curriculum respecting—albeit perhaps insufficiently—Arab culture and history. "
Which is highly economical - Palestinian Arabs within Israel were under military law between 1948 and 1966.
There were early Zionists like Martin Buber who were fervent believers in binationalism and a federal solution, but they were marginalised and came to their beliefs independently of Herzl.
Pope Leo: Do not involve God in the choices of death. God cannot be enlisted for darkness.
Score 1 for Leo. Hegseth: 0
So if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon also then wouldn't Mutual Assured Destruction ("MAD") ensure they never use them against each other? Like India and Pakistan.
Don't worry, though, because the President of the US believes Israel would never use them against Iran.