IsraelBoard

Hi! new nation, not new to NS though, just thought I'd try to remake my ancestral homeland in the way I think it should be

dead chat

Krimzen wrote:

Greetings Brothers, may I ask you all your favorite aspect of playing NationStates? I personally like the game to just build my industry and economy and rule the government somewhat close to my own political views, as much as I can with its issues simulation.

I too enjoy trying to get my game nation to image my own views. This is sometimes very hard to do, due to the mechanics and the left leaning issues.
Having played this game for too numerous of years, now I just watch out for our region.

The harith tribe wrote:

Yep. I skip more issues than I solve - either because the question is a little silly or because I know that the nominally conservative choice would produce a counterintuitive outcome, e.g. refusing to nationalize farms *reduces* the income of the poor or decreases average health, for some reason.

On another note, glad to have your watchful eye over these parts.

It's come to the point where I don't even care about the health stats of my nation because I care so little about the dumb calculations. The statistic simulation makes no sense, anyway. A 25 year lifespan does nothing to the economy. (really)

Back to nation states!

So what is the opinion you all have of the WA? I haven't used it since about 2015.

Krimzen wrote:

So what is the opinion you all have of the WA? I haven't used it since about 2015.

I have been a member since I founded this nation, continously for the last 14 years, when it was still called the UN. I remember how Max Berry told us all on some April 1st that he got an official letter from the real United Nations, demanding that he cease to use that name. The trick was that we all thought it was one of his April Fool's jokes - but it was for real. So the name changed to the WA.
Usually I agree with most resolutions. I know some have resigned from it, H being the clear example, though I really don't see much fun in this game without being a WA member. But then again, as a proud leftist I understand why conservative members would be upset by some resolutions, which is yet another good reason to remain a member :) Having said that, I think I need to try very hard to remember votes that I had disagreed with Flor-Fina on.
"Decisions are made by those who show up"! (President Bartlet, the West Wing/Aaron Sorkin)

“You’ll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.”
I join the WA solely to help keep the region secure.

Mossad agent h wrote:

The women of Israel thank you for that, Flor-Fina.

Good show.

Samyriana wrote:

I need advice. I recently had a conversation on NS with someone about nations, and pointed out that Israel's Jewish identity is central to it. If you remove the right of a Israel to be a Jewish state, you undermine Israel. I find trying to remove Israel's Jewish identity to be antisemitic.

They told me that "modern nations and cultures aren’t based off of ethnic groups" and that they "shouldn't be either." And that more immigration is good for all of them. Another NS user actually denounced Israel's immigration laws.

What would you tell them to help them understand that making undermining Israel's Jewish identity is something antisemites dream of doing?

My answer is unlikely to be helpful in your discussion with this NS user, but I think it’s important all the same: The debate over what constitutes “good” for the modern nation state is between two camps with different criteria of what make moral nations.

The problem is this: For the modern liberal, a good nation state is one with low poverty and an inclusive culture - the confluence of which, they hope, will maximize pleasure and enjoyment for the individual. The sum of a good nation, to them, is one that is able to promote the most comfortable life for one to achieve a sense of self-actualization.

This is a very new role for the nation state. Practically no nations throughout history have ever adopted this modern understanding, opting instead to use the power of the state to effectuate the collective designs of an ethnically or religiously homogenous people. (That’s an oversimplification, but the fact to keep in mind is that these nations believe in a form of cultural collectivism.)

The problem with the liberal’s assumption that the modern nation state is best is threefold

1) It is not tried. We do not know if these nations can last because they have not largely been tested. Further, in nations that have introduced some level of diversity, the results have not followed along strict materialist lines. Israel sees, rightly, that the experiment in Western Europe has not produced a wonderful multicultural society but rather one that is still very much segregated. It is disruptive, too, and has led to the rise of ultra-right parties skeptical of democracy.

2) Even if Israel did adopt this model, the practical result is not only its loss of identity as a Jewish nation - likely, Jews would not exist. The liberal has no understanding of history beyond the last 15 minutes. When Jews become the minority, they are killed. You don’t need to be a scholar on anti-semitism to recognize this fact.

3) The liberal’s conception of the good nation state is question begging: *Is* inclusion a moral good? Is a high GDP a moral good? I’ve asked a few good-hearted liberals what the underlying principle behind inclusion is. It always has to do with righting historical wrongs. That does not seem like a sufficient reason to upend a society’s culture using policy like one manipulates a chess piece. It’s hubristic and selfish.

A side note, for 4) No other nation is criticized for this. Not the Saudis, not China, not Japan, no one. Jews aren’t allowed to live in many places in the world, meaning that we are centralized largely in America and Israel. History shows us that Judaism has no permanent home in diaspora. The liberal doesn’t care about this. He doesn’t care if Judaism and its practices died tomorrow, because to him, Judaism is a farce, as is our God, and the only god worth worship (and sacrifice) is the god of 4% GDP growth per year and a generous welfare state.

Again, none of these reasons is bound to satisfy a liberal who asks about the Israel question. But we have radically different values. The materialist sees the world entirely differently than the Jew. And so there’s little possible compromise.

(It’s also strange to me that the people most obsessed with “safe spaces” here in the West are so opposed to the idea when practiced by Jews.)

Today is the Israeli democracy holiday (i.e., elections).
You know my views... There have never been better Prime Ministers than Ben Gurion and Bibi. Israel flourishes under Netanyahu. True, I am a bit concerned about his personal character, integrity and traits. As a personal friend I would have prefered Gantz (he's more handsome, too :) ), but this is not a vote for friends. To me, the choice is clear: in recent decades the left has only brought us blood, tears and losses - disguised as pretty nice words; the right has brought us development, relative safety, prosperity, and unbelieveable diplomatic achievements. Peace through strength rather than through concessions. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Good luck, and may the best person for Israel win.