Positive Thinking, The little engine that could, and IngSoc
The religion of the Jews and the political aspirations of the Jews are not easily separable. [Except all the Zionists that founded the State were areligious Socialists]When in time you get around to talking about what is it to be committed to being Jewish you might not want to frame it in terms of why we should be committed to falsity.
Second, the outcome of an enterprise depends not just on the provable facts but also on expectations which are colored by emotions, dreams and attitudes. If you are a stock trader you know that 2 companies can have the exact same quants and one trades at 30PE and the other at 10PE. Enterprises are facts (financials) under a description, the latter being determined by perceptions, framing attitudes, and creative imaginings. But these 'dreams' are very real, create hard facts and are very costly if disregarded. Bear Stearns on the way down and Google on the way up are good examples.[ And this is why the markets have long stopped trading on fundamentals and are all trading on herd mentality. It is a fancy pyramid scheme]
If the Zionists had used your notions of reality they never would have fought in 1948 and would today leave en masse. [They probably said that about Bar Kokhba back in the day. Up until Betar fell and the rivers of blood drained into the Sea.]If the Jews during our long galus had been realistic about their chances for coming back as a major power most would have converted. Jews live by a romantic swerving from the hard reality, sometimes even constructing myths as we go along. The creativity of these myths might even serve false grandiose ideals...we can fly, we are special, we will prevail no matter what. Many times these 'falsehoods' make all the difference to the success of the enterprise and when they shatter it is straight downhill. But if they succeed they give new meaning to what constitutes truth.
This last pair of sentences truly bothers me. As I replied to EJ on XGH's blog, the notion of using falsehoods for the common good is ancient, starting with Plato's noble lie, and continuing to all the major 'isms' of the 20th century, including Zionism. It is effective, but is it right?
And there is something chilling about the detached way EJ reveals this sentiment, though I am sure it was not meant that way. He reminds me of O'Brien in Room 101.