Foucault, Derrida, Shagar, the Settler Nakba and the Future of Zionism


[button style=’blue’ url=’tlv1.fm/promisedpodcast’ target=’_blank’]Subscribe To The Podcast[/button] [button style=’blue’ url=’tlv1.fm/content/full-show/promised-podcast/’ target=’_blank’]Previous Episodes[/button]

Have young settlers rejected the nationalism of their parents, embracing instead a neo-Hasidic post-Zionism that changes their political views and aspirations?

Looking to support the show? Learn how on Patreon.

This is a segment from The “For the Sins We Have Sinned” Edition.

4 comments on “Foucault, Derrida, Shagar, the Settler Nakba and the Future of Zionism

  1. Greg Pollock says:

    Paraphrasing, for lack of total recall: “People ultimately put [postmodernism] down to raise families.”

    That is where reality comes back to slap. People do reproduce, either by fumble or with resolved necessity; many who do not directly are still tied to the reproductive effort of others, a life sentence well crafted by evolution, which the roach beyond all concept of humility also dances, out of personal will or not, dances. The human world is never going to exit itself by reproductive denial as an act of will unattached to causation. That is where social science ultimately rests, and why the world will keep going.

    But this does not mean that all social strategies map in a directly representational way onto the reality which travels forward whether we are with it or not. Zionist claim of ancient right to the land (or divine right if religious) does have an empirical tether: making it, one must show presence in the “ancient” era. Beyond that, there is no tether. The descendants of Aztecs, of which there are many, have no traction in a first here claim. So too a claim that one should respect both Jews and Palestinians who “love the land they live upon” has a tether in that one must be on said land to assert it, but whether or not the claim of mutual respect should be actualized otherwise has no tether save for the stability of the assertion now and in a projected mix of future social strategies. National social strategies are usually if not invariably crazy in that they assert a unique status to roll over all rivals. This may work as a strategy, but it doesn’t mean that the assertion of the strategy would be valid for third parties outside of contention, such as Zeus or those on Sirius receiving, dumbfounded, our history as radio and television delayed broadcasts.

    Climate change should show us the absurdity of postmodern all constructed reality. That humans will always employ mythology to survive and advance should not be confused with asserting that Hurricane Maria may be denied as an act of collective relativism. Try announcing that in a marketplace in Puerto Rico, if you can find one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Listen on your favorite podcast app