We Jews would build a functioning state with all that implies, just like we did last time we got the chance.
Palestinians would bitch and moan that the Jews are on a stolen, colonized Palestinian Island and committing genocide against the Palestinians, even tho the Palestinian population is growing uncontrollably.
Remember the old (tired) joke about the Jewish guy who was alone on a desert island for 30 years, and built two synagogues. When he was finally rescued, he was asked why two synagogues? He pointed at one of them: "Because THAT one I won't go to!"
Re "the last time we got the chance" -- huge frictions, factions, communal fighting. If there's not an external enemy, we'll find one within. But on a good day, it's "arguing for the sake of Heaven" while lighting candles on Friday night and having dinner with family and friends, all pointing to some future day when all will be well. >> Do Palestinians have an analog? I don't think so, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Of course its not that simple. One could write a book examining the entire counter factual you proposed. But I stand by the bottom line as I described it.
It seems both parties would face the same challenge, each in their own way.
What would the Palestinians be without Israel, and what would Jews be without the Holocaust and centuries of European oppression etc? Who are they, if they are no longer victims?
Wait, I figured it out. For some long period of time, both would continue to cling to a victim identity, but the battlefield would move from the real world to the digital world. The war would become purely rhetorical.
So, to fix that, no Internet for either island! :-)
You hit the nail on the head. Both nations can form an identity around oppression. But the Jews also have Mt Sinai, the memory of a communal encounter with a Voice or an awareness that Egypt and Pharaoh would NOT be the core of Jewish identity; the revealed Covenant and its way of life (e.g., Shabbat) would and should be the national glue.
What is the analog, if any, for the Palestinians? What's their national story without Israel and without oppression?
Noooo… How is it possible that the longer we converse, the less we understand each other? … Oh, wait, I know: as soon as we think and talk, we divide!! 🙃
So both parties are now separated, no longer able to fight. Then what?
For some period of time, they continue to focus on each other out of long habit. Why are we stuck on these islands? How did we lose our land in the Middle East?? It's all those other people's fault!!! But at some point that becomes old news rejected by new generations. Then what?
Then each party begins fighting within itself over something or another. Maybe one bunch of Jews wants to leave the island and return to the Middle East, and the other bunch of Jews wants to stay on this island. Same for the Palestinians. Or the new fight is over something else.
All over the world, all throughout history, there's always some fight going on about something. Why is that?
What is to be done? On a personal level plenty can be done to improve the human condition, and nothing can be done to fix it. The human mind condition can be managed, just as the human body condition is managed. We can eat to address our hunger, but there is nothing we can eat that will permanently end our hunger. If we want to stay healthy, we have to keep eating.
The kind of religion that attempts to put our human condition in to a larger context is one of the management methods people have long reached for. If our current situation is temporary, or we believe that to be so, our human condition may become easier to manage, and we may find it easier to make peace with an inability to permanently fix things.
I'm not sure that love requires a human target. One can love animals, nature, God etc. Does love require ANY target? Hmm.....
If it helps, the "divisive nature of thought" doesn't refer to human arguments. It simply means literally "to divide". Some of the thought generated division makes us genius, some of it makes us insane. It's not a simplistic "thought is bad" formula.
Once it's seen that the division (and thus conflict) is built in, that helps explain why morality helps manage the human condition, but it never finally fixes it. Morality is not going to "redeem the world".
And so once the warring parties are separated on their respective islands and can no longer fight each other, the same old conflict stuff comes to the surface yet again in some other form.
If the two islands were located near to each other, the so-called "P*lestinians" would say that "the Jews" were far too close, constantly dictating terms and exercising control, and that the "P*lestinians" never got the chance to build up "their land."
They would call upon the UN to secure an island at a greater distance from "the Jews" so that "their problems" could be resolved.
If the islands were far apart, the so-called "P*lestinians" would say that "the Jews" were "using weapons" from afar to maintain control over "P*lestine"—as is well-knowingly typical of "Jewish world domination."
They would call upon the UN to assign "the Jews" an island in the immediate vicinity so that "they could be better controlled."
You might be right, H. But my goal here is to isolate the two parties — not near each other, not far from each other. Two nations inhabiting two separate planets. How would they define themselves? What’s their goal? What’s the glue, if any, that would hold the people together as one?
I adressed exactly this “problem”. “The P*lestinians” define themselves only around “The Jews” and “the hostility and oppression” that allegedly “goes out from the Jews”. They don´t have any identity of their own. If “The Fiend” wouldn´t be present anymore, they would fall apart, that´s why they would cling to it.
We Jews would build a functioning state with all that implies, just like we did last time we got the chance.
Palestinians would bitch and moan that the Jews are on a stolen, colonized Palestinian Island and committing genocide against the Palestinians, even tho the Palestinian population is growing uncontrollably.
I doubt it would be that simple.
Remember the old (tired) joke about the Jewish guy who was alone on a desert island for 30 years, and built two synagogues. When he was finally rescued, he was asked why two synagogues? He pointed at one of them: "Because THAT one I won't go to!"
Re "the last time we got the chance" -- huge frictions, factions, communal fighting. If there's not an external enemy, we'll find one within. But on a good day, it's "arguing for the sake of Heaven" while lighting candles on Friday night and having dinner with family and friends, all pointing to some future day when all will be well. >> Do Palestinians have an analog? I don't think so, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Of course its not that simple. One could write a book examining the entire counter factual you proposed. But I stand by the bottom line as I described it.
It seems both parties would face the same challenge, each in their own way.
What would the Palestinians be without Israel, and what would Jews be without the Holocaust and centuries of European oppression etc? Who are they, if they are no longer victims?
Wait, I figured it out. For some long period of time, both would continue to cling to a victim identity, but the battlefield would move from the real world to the digital world. The war would become purely rhetorical.
So, to fix that, no Internet for either island! :-)
You hit the nail on the head. Both nations can form an identity around oppression. But the Jews also have Mt Sinai, the memory of a communal encounter with a Voice or an awareness that Egypt and Pharaoh would NOT be the core of Jewish identity; the revealed Covenant and its way of life (e.g., Shabbat) would and should be the national glue.
What is the analog, if any, for the Palestinians? What's their national story without Israel and without oppression?
Israel story: We are superior to the Palestinians.
Palestinian story: We are superior to the Jews.
Noooo… How is it possible that the longer we converse, the less we understand each other? … Oh, wait, I know: as soon as we think and talk, we divide!! 🙃
Ok, returning to your island scenario....
So both parties are now separated, no longer able to fight. Then what?
For some period of time, they continue to focus on each other out of long habit. Why are we stuck on these islands? How did we lose our land in the Middle East?? It's all those other people's fault!!! But at some point that becomes old news rejected by new generations. Then what?
Then each party begins fighting within itself over something or another. Maybe one bunch of Jews wants to leave the island and return to the Middle East, and the other bunch of Jews wants to stay on this island. Same for the Palestinians. Or the new fight is over something else.
All over the world, all throughout history, there's always some fight going on about something. Why is that?
Because as a wise man once said: "Thinking begets division." (Short of becoming a Buddhist, I'm not sure what is to be done.)
Related question: Does love require a beloved? If so, is thinking (dividing; separating one from another) a prerequisite to love?
What is to be done? On a personal level plenty can be done to improve the human condition, and nothing can be done to fix it. The human mind condition can be managed, just as the human body condition is managed. We can eat to address our hunger, but there is nothing we can eat that will permanently end our hunger. If we want to stay healthy, we have to keep eating.
The kind of religion that attempts to put our human condition in to a larger context is one of the management methods people have long reached for. If our current situation is temporary, or we believe that to be so, our human condition may become easier to manage, and we may find it easier to make peace with an inability to permanently fix things.
I'm not sure that love requires a human target. One can love animals, nature, God etc. Does love require ANY target? Hmm.....
If it helps, the "divisive nature of thought" doesn't refer to human arguments. It simply means literally "to divide". Some of the thought generated division makes us genius, some of it makes us insane. It's not a simplistic "thought is bad" formula.
Once it's seen that the division (and thus conflict) is built in, that helps explain why morality helps manage the human condition, but it never finally fixes it. Morality is not going to "redeem the world".
And so once the warring parties are separated on their respective islands and can no longer fight each other, the same old conflict stuff comes to the surface yet again in some other form.
It depends:
If the two islands were located near to each other, the so-called "P*lestinians" would say that "the Jews" were far too close, constantly dictating terms and exercising control, and that the "P*lestinians" never got the chance to build up "their land."
They would call upon the UN to secure an island at a greater distance from "the Jews" so that "their problems" could be resolved.
If the islands were far apart, the so-called "P*lestinians" would say that "the Jews" were "using weapons" from afar to maintain control over "P*lestine"—as is well-knowingly typical of "Jewish world domination."
They would call upon the UN to assign "the Jews" an island in the immediate vicinity so that "they could be better controlled."
You might be right, H. But my goal here is to isolate the two parties — not near each other, not far from each other. Two nations inhabiting two separate planets. How would they define themselves? What’s their goal? What’s the glue, if any, that would hold the people together as one?
I adressed exactly this “problem”. “The P*lestinians” define themselves only around “The Jews” and “the hostility and oppression” that allegedly “goes out from the Jews”. They don´t have any identity of their own. If “The Fiend” wouldn´t be present anymore, they would fall apart, that´s why they would cling to it.