Physics Bloggers go Nuts about Israel

Scott Aaronson and Peter Woit are debating Zionism against.

Your blog post is completely insane. I tried to tell you earlier this year that you should be seeking professional help about this, and things have now gotten much worse.

I will let you decide for yourself who is insane.

The politics of Zionism have definitely shifted. I will just note that Gaza could put an end to the war any any time by surrendering. But no, they are still holding hostages and killing Israelis.

Update: Woit's parting shot:

The responsibility for the war belongs partly with Hamas. The responsibility for the genocide belongs squarely with the Israeli government.

No, it is not a genocide, as the population of Gaza has not changed much. The words genocide and antisemitic are not helpful. The argument is that Israel is pursuing its enemies more aggressively than is necessary. I do not know whether that is true.

I do not know why an American would even care, unless it is a proxy for opinions about Jewish influence in world affairs. Some want that influence increased, and some want it decreased.

Update: Their debate rages on, with this image:

Aaronson has closed comments, while Woit's comments are heavily "moderated". Woit has allowed a couple of critical comments by Aaronson and others. There is no serious discussion of whether the Gaza War is really a genocide, except for someone saying that the population has increased. Woit has deleted most of the adverse comments.

Both Aaronson and Woit are hard-core Trump-haters. They both has Trump Derangement Syndrome badly enough that all their political views are questions.

Now that Zionism has overtaken Aaronson's political views, I wonder if he will flip on Trump, as Trump firmly supports Israel defending itself, and also defending against antisemitism in the USA. I doubt it.

Update: A commenter Amanda S. says:

For me, the issue is simple: an innocent child—any child, anywhere, of any faith or ethnicity—is an infinitely valuable and precious being.

If she really believes this, then she probably opposes any taking any risk in the presence of a child. I don't know how that would work. You can only be a pacifist if you avoid any real-world decisions.

I understand those who think that Israel is being too harsh on Gaza. I might even agree with it, if I knew more about it. But even if that is true, it is not clear what Israel should be doing, or what its enemies are demanding. Some of them are demanding that Israel be destroyed as a Jewish state. I have read Woit's posts, and it is not clear where he stands.

Here is praise for Aaronson's earlier position:

I want the Palestinians to have a state, comprising the West Bank and Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem. I want Israel to uproot all West Bank settlements that prevent such a state. I want this to happen the instant there arises a Palestinian leadership genuinely committed to peace—one that embraces liberal values and rejects martyr values, in everything from textbooks to street names.

And I want more. I want the new Palestinian state to be as prosperous and free and educated as modern Germany and Japan are. I want it to embrace women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights and the rest of the modern package, so that “Queers for Palestine” would no longer be a sick joke. I want the new Palestine to be as intertwined with Israel, culturally and economically, as the US and Canada are.

Better yet, get all the Jews and Moslems to convert to Christianity, and then they will figure out how to live in peace.

Update: One conclusion I draw from this is to disregard people who use terms like antisemitism, genocide, racism, colonialist, fascist, racism, etc. These have all become meaningless epithets, with special interest groups ever expanding and distorting their meanings. If someone has a legitimate argument, then he can use facts and principles, not name-calling.

Update: After declaring Zionism his most important issue, Aaronson explains that the one more important issue is hating Trump.