I see Baruch's position as fundamentally honest and aligned with pragmatic reality. Despite having the brains to be a successful rootless cosmopolitan, he has firmly planted his feet in a place, a very *specific* place, come what may. To that, I say יישר כוח.
On the other hand, I think Maskil uses this platform to hash out some of his deeply held convictions, many of which are contradictory. There is an unresolved tension in Maskil's writing, almost a sense of intellectual torment, presumably originating in ideological rigidity, that I do not detect in Baruch. A lot of Maskil's writing comes off, to me at least, as convoluted, self-flagellating, and unnecessarily incendiary as he tries to place the blame for Israel's predicament exclusively on other Jews. I believe this is a misguided holdover from the exile.
I've tried, as you have, to get the two of them to talk to one another in some kind of moderated forum, but this has yet to come to pass.
As an external Muslim viewer also interested in the Maskil Binah vs Baruch Hasofer fight it is interesting to see 2 ideas of future Judaism, also funny given they both hold very close ideas like religiosity and about HBD and would hate me IRL.
The issue I find is while Baruch is smart and he can keep pragmatic ideas about violence and conquest, many of his fellow Jews seem less capable of such grey thinking which is how Arabs got to the point of being led by fanatical retards.
Jews usually don't focus on the Arab side because why do it, but a lot of the base endemic dysfunctions of the Arab countries are being copied via osmosis in Israel (from what an external viewer can see) and while today the society is capable of leading a pragmatic, truth oriented and technically competent army/society there are some corroding forced which are decreasing the advantage year after year.
Notably after Oct 7th a lot of the global opinion soured because while everyone expects Arabs to be savages, Israelis always purported themselves to be a "shining beacon of democracy in the middle east" which they have not shown to be. This plus the whole Amalek shit, the far right taking power, Bibi and the establishment proclaiming to go after Turkey next (retarded move) this has put the idea in the heads of many normies that Israel will not stop even if its neighbours are pacified which is motivating them to pull away from Israel and more towards the neighbours. The land and population pressures seem to be putting some weight to this idea as well.
When I see the criticisms of Maskil Binah or others I feel a weird mix of rejoicement that Jews (overall) are trending to the same low level of retardation and short sightedness as their Arab neighbours and the martial attitude of Baruch confirms this direction and concern as on the other hand it is strange because I don't wish to have the same frustration the average Palestinian or Lebanese has to Jews because it is a kind of powerlessness of being led by retards you cannot do much about, because the enemy is worse and they actually want to take your land/kill you (what many think). So you accept the bad leadership because it is less worse than sure exile or death.
I'll add that this split is also indicative of a global shift from democratic order( muh morals) to a more tribal order( right is might)
We are in middle of that transition Boruch speaks to the future and maskil speaks to the past…the past was more fake but pragmatic and peaceful and the future is more real but violent.
I think Maskil still has a point for a very simple reason. The creation of the state of Israel coincided with a particular moment of weakness in the Arab/Islamic world that started circa 1790s and accelerated with the fall of the Ottoman empire (1921). So for basically most of the existance of the proto-state and state of Israel Jews could use the technological and human capital advantage to go toe to toe with the Arab world and humiliate them. That era seems to be coming to an end because Turkey has shown a successful process of industrialization and Iran despite the incredibly hurdles and blockades they have acheived a respectable level of industrial production/technology. The stabilization of demography stopping the pressures on fragile states, industrialization and improvement are gonna change the balance and unless Israel cements an accord like right now they will be in a future position where there will be revanchism.
Baruch opts for the strategy of infinitely becoming better so they can always defend their state while Maskil Binah opts for the strategy of cementing a series of accords while there is still time to ensure that "the future generations are spared" because unlike Baruch he thinks Arabs can be reasoned, which Baruch has usually mocked.
Boruch is the equivalent of Germany in the 1930s..using the tribal and primal spirit of man to awaken and build a superpower …but endless expansion never ends well.
As a jew, it sounds cool but these mindsets just end in tribal warfare and insane amounts of bloodshed…that's why orthodox jews believe that we should be subservient to our host countries and remain mostly pacificists.
I would say that it depends if the person you deal with to begin with are tribal and refuse to be diplomatic. Many Arab nations are like this, but not all. Now when you address a Muslim directly, before you sympathize it would be important to know if he means the same thing as you. Just ask the "Would you support Sharia Law in the US" question and see where he stands.
This comment raises core questions, curious what you think of these two reactions:
1. It looks to me as an outsider that many of the same factors are causing both the weakness of the Arab/Islamic world and the high priority they give to opposing Israel. So if the Arab/Muslim side actually does manage to shake off their centuries of weakness and become functional, it will probably involve cultural, political and social changes that will make them less motivated to be revanchist and actively fight us.
2. Even if we do somehow manage to come to a series of accords, I doubt that your side would uphold their end down the road if the balance changes and we end up as the weaker side. So there's no escape from a strategy of infinitely becoming better.
Very sound post, of course with your trademark "both are needed".
The problem sometimes comes in when there are actually mitzvos that require what Baruch claims is needed, for example כיבוש מלחמה and עקירת עבודה זרה. So the bottom line is that while the argument is legit from a political viewpoint, it also comes down to the classic religions Zionism debate.
The root of their disagreement is religious, hence Maskil’s focus on the Zohar. Once you remove Kabbalah and regular Rambamism, there’s precious little religious justification for Zionism.
Once you remove the religious element, what’s left is a question of political theory, which you’ve roughly outlined. But ultimately the key deciding factor is whether the Religious perspective is justified or not.
This is probably also why Baruch is uninterested in a debate. What’s the point? One side recognises the essentially supernal authority of Rabbinic theology over the past 400 years, and the other does not. There’s precious little shared ground on that topic, and Baruch is seemingly less well versed there and will appeal to authority, not a fallacy in this environment but also not a particularly clarifying position. On political theory, the debate would be endless, as it is in the wider sphere too, devolving into hypotheticals and counterfactuals.
Regarding the second Bayis, Baruch has argued before that Rabbi Akiva’s support of Bar Kochba, as codified by Rambam, supplant’s Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai’s pacifism recorded in the Gemara.
The middle ground between the two is just classical Aguda/Chareidi, which is Non Zionist. The differences to Maskil’s position would be minimal, except for accepting some metaphysics that demean gentiles and allow for some more fanciful policies.
Ruthlessness is the fourth and final song of The Ocean Saga, during which Poseidon appears to take revenge on Odysseus and his crew for blinding his son, Polyphemus.
Lyrics
[ODYSSEUS]
Poseidon...
[POSEIDON]
In all my years of living
It isn't very often that I get pissed off
I try to chill with the waves
But damn, you've crossed the line
I've been so gracious
And yet, you hurt the son of mine
That's right, the cyclops you made blind, is mine
[ODYSSEUS]
No
[POSEIDON, LAESTRYGONIANS]
I'm left without a choice
And without a doubt
Guess the pack of wolves is swimming with the shark now
I've gotta make you bleed
I need to see you drown
But before you go, I need to make you learn how
Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves
Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves
Ruthlessness is mеrcy upon ourselves
Ourselves
You are the worse kind of good
Cause you're not even great
A Greek who reeks of false righteousness
That's what I hate
Cause you fight to save lives
But won't kill and don't get the job done
I mean you totally could have avoided all this
Had you just killed my son
But no
You are far too nice
Mercy has a price
It's the final crack we're about to break the ice now
I'm obviously biased, but I think you're straw manning Baruch and steel manning Maskil to an unfair degree, in that everything Maskil argues for has been tried and failed, and his only option now to to attack other Jews and cry. Baruch on the other hand is arguing for the continuation of the only successful long term strategy in Israel's history: conquest, expulsion and settlement. The fact that you argue he would have mocked the Dunkirk evacuation shows me you are in fact straw manning what he thinks. Arguing that we should win wars and not intentionally lose them to appease the "international community" does not equal denying the concept of a tactical retreat.
I see Baruch's position as fundamentally honest and aligned with pragmatic reality. Despite having the brains to be a successful rootless cosmopolitan, he has firmly planted his feet in a place, a very *specific* place, come what may. To that, I say יישר כוח.
On the other hand, I think Maskil uses this platform to hash out some of his deeply held convictions, many of which are contradictory. There is an unresolved tension in Maskil's writing, almost a sense of intellectual torment, presumably originating in ideological rigidity, that I do not detect in Baruch. A lot of Maskil's writing comes off, to me at least, as convoluted, self-flagellating, and unnecessarily incendiary as he tries to place the blame for Israel's predicament exclusively on other Jews. I believe this is a misguided holdover from the exile.
I've tried, as you have, to get the two of them to talk to one another in some kind of moderated forum, but this has yet to come to pass.
I respect Boruch alot....I just think that he disregards the global implications of his actions
As an external Muslim viewer also interested in the Maskil Binah vs Baruch Hasofer fight it is interesting to see 2 ideas of future Judaism, also funny given they both hold very close ideas like religiosity and about HBD and would hate me IRL.
The issue I find is while Baruch is smart and he can keep pragmatic ideas about violence and conquest, many of his fellow Jews seem less capable of such grey thinking which is how Arabs got to the point of being led by fanatical retards.
Jews usually don't focus on the Arab side because why do it, but a lot of the base endemic dysfunctions of the Arab countries are being copied via osmosis in Israel (from what an external viewer can see) and while today the society is capable of leading a pragmatic, truth oriented and technically competent army/society there are some corroding forced which are decreasing the advantage year after year.
Notably after Oct 7th a lot of the global opinion soured because while everyone expects Arabs to be savages, Israelis always purported themselves to be a "shining beacon of democracy in the middle east" which they have not shown to be. This plus the whole Amalek shit, the far right taking power, Bibi and the establishment proclaiming to go after Turkey next (retarded move) this has put the idea in the heads of many normies that Israel will not stop even if its neighbours are pacified which is motivating them to pull away from Israel and more towards the neighbours. The land and population pressures seem to be putting some weight to this idea as well.
When I see the criticisms of Maskil Binah or others I feel a weird mix of rejoicement that Jews (overall) are trending to the same low level of retardation and short sightedness as their Arab neighbours and the martial attitude of Baruch confirms this direction and concern as on the other hand it is strange because I don't wish to have the same frustration the average Palestinian or Lebanese has to Jews because it is a kind of powerlessness of being led by retards you cannot do much about, because the enemy is worse and they actually want to take your land/kill you (what many think). So you accept the bad leadership because it is less worse than sure exile or death.
Pretty much sums up my feelings to a “T”.
I'll add that this split is also indicative of a global shift from democratic order( muh morals) to a more tribal order( right is might)
We are in middle of that transition Boruch speaks to the future and maskil speaks to the past…the past was more fake but pragmatic and peaceful and the future is more real but violent.
I think Maskil still has a point for a very simple reason. The creation of the state of Israel coincided with a particular moment of weakness in the Arab/Islamic world that started circa 1790s and accelerated with the fall of the Ottoman empire (1921). So for basically most of the existance of the proto-state and state of Israel Jews could use the technological and human capital advantage to go toe to toe with the Arab world and humiliate them. That era seems to be coming to an end because Turkey has shown a successful process of industrialization and Iran despite the incredibly hurdles and blockades they have acheived a respectable level of industrial production/technology. The stabilization of demography stopping the pressures on fragile states, industrialization and improvement are gonna change the balance and unless Israel cements an accord like right now they will be in a future position where there will be revanchism.
Baruch opts for the strategy of infinitely becoming better so they can always defend their state while Maskil Binah opts for the strategy of cementing a series of accords while there is still time to ensure that "the future generations are spared" because unlike Baruch he thinks Arabs can be reasoned, which Baruch has usually mocked.
Boruch is the equivalent of Germany in the 1930s..using the tribal and primal spirit of man to awaken and build a superpower …but endless expansion never ends well.
As a jew, it sounds cool but these mindsets just end in tribal warfare and insane amounts of bloodshed…that's why orthodox jews believe that we should be subservient to our host countries and remain mostly pacificists.
I thought Boruch is simply an old-school Revisionist Zionist from the 1930s. You don't have to go overboard to Nazi fascism.
I don't mean he is literally a fascist.
I mean that chimping out in a tribal way with visions of grandeur never end well.
I would say that it depends if the person you deal with to begin with are tribal and refuse to be diplomatic. Many Arab nations are like this, but not all. Now when you address a Muslim directly, before you sympathize it would be important to know if he means the same thing as you. Just ask the "Would you support Sharia Law in the US" question and see where he stands.
This comment raises core questions, curious what you think of these two reactions:
1. It looks to me as an outsider that many of the same factors are causing both the weakness of the Arab/Islamic world and the high priority they give to opposing Israel. So if the Arab/Muslim side actually does manage to shake off their centuries of weakness and become functional, it will probably involve cultural, political and social changes that will make them less motivated to be revanchist and actively fight us.
2. Even if we do somehow manage to come to a series of accords, I doubt that your side would uphold their end down the road if the balance changes and we end up as the weaker side. So there's no escape from a strategy of infinitely becoming better.
Very sound post, of course with your trademark "both are needed".
The problem sometimes comes in when there are actually mitzvos that require what Baruch claims is needed, for example כיבוש מלחמה and עקירת עבודה זרה. So the bottom line is that while the argument is legit from a political viewpoint, it also comes down to the classic religions Zionism debate.
Unless I am musunderstanding him, Boruch makes his arguments from pragmatism not just religious arguments.
Correct, he is coming from "Both" LOL:)
The root of their disagreement is religious, hence Maskil’s focus on the Zohar. Once you remove Kabbalah and regular Rambamism, there’s precious little religious justification for Zionism.
Once you remove the religious element, what’s left is a question of political theory, which you’ve roughly outlined. But ultimately the key deciding factor is whether the Religious perspective is justified or not.
This is probably also why Baruch is uninterested in a debate. What’s the point? One side recognises the essentially supernal authority of Rabbinic theology over the past 400 years, and the other does not. There’s precious little shared ground on that topic, and Baruch is seemingly less well versed there and will appeal to authority, not a fallacy in this environment but also not a particularly clarifying position. On political theory, the debate would be endless, as it is in the wider sphere too, devolving into hypotheticals and counterfactuals.
Regarding the second Bayis, Baruch has argued before that Rabbi Akiva’s support of Bar Kochba, as codified by Rambam, supplant’s Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai’s pacifism recorded in the Gemara.
The middle ground between the two is just classical Aguda/Chareidi, which is Non Zionist. The differences to Maskil’s position would be minimal, except for accepting some metaphysics that demean gentiles and allow for some more fanciful policies.
Ruthlessness is the fourth and final song of The Ocean Saga, during which Poseidon appears to take revenge on Odysseus and his crew for blinding his son, Polyphemus.
Lyrics
[ODYSSEUS]
Poseidon...
[POSEIDON]
In all my years of living
It isn't very often that I get pissed off
I try to chill with the waves
But damn, you've crossed the line
I've been so gracious
And yet, you hurt the son of mine
That's right, the cyclops you made blind, is mine
[ODYSSEUS]
No
[POSEIDON, LAESTRYGONIANS]
I'm left without a choice
And without a doubt
Guess the pack of wolves is swimming with the shark now
I've gotta make you bleed
I need to see you drown
But before you go, I need to make you learn how
Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves
Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves
Ruthlessness is mеrcy upon ourselves
Ourselves
You are the worse kind of good
Cause you're not even great
A Greek who reeks of false righteousness
That's what I hate
Cause you fight to save lives
But won't kill and don't get the job done
I mean you totally could have avoided all this
Had you just killed my son
But no
You are far too nice
Mercy has a price
It's the final crack we're about to break the ice now
You reveal your name
Then you let him live
Unlike you I've got no mercy left to give 'cause
Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves
Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves
Ruthlessness is mercy upon ourselves
Ourselves
And now it is finally time
To say goodbye
Today, you die
Unless, of course, you apologize
For my son's pain
And all his cries
[ODYSSEUS]
Poseidon, we meant no harm
We only hurt him to disarm him
We took no pleasure in his pain
We only wanted to escape
[POSEIDON]
The line between naïveté and
Hopefulness is almost invisible
So close your heart
The world is dark and
[POSEIDON & LAESTRYGONIANS]
Ruthlessness is mercy-
[POSEIDON]
Die
I'm obviously biased, but I think you're straw manning Baruch and steel manning Maskil to an unfair degree, in that everything Maskil argues for has been tried and failed, and his only option now to to attack other Jews and cry. Baruch on the other hand is arguing for the continuation of the only successful long term strategy in Israel's history: conquest, expulsion and settlement. The fact that you argue he would have mocked the Dunkirk evacuation shows me you are in fact straw manning what he thinks. Arguing that we should win wars and not intentionally lose them to appease the "international community" does not equal denying the concept of a tactical retreat.
I think I slapped them and complimented them equally.
How does being pro settler violence and destroying a statue of Jesus fit with this?
He literally replied to my note that he would have opposed the sages trying to negotiate with rome..