StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Einstein famously turned down the role of being the first head of state in Israel, citing that the politics of the day were transient and fleeting in comparison to the timelessness of an equation. Dude hadn't seen nothing yet as far as misplaced public priorities go, but nevertheless, had he taken the job, being both an outspoken atheist, socialist and civil rights activist, not to mention the legendary and near-unopposed respect he commanded from just about anyone who he would've come into contact with in the course of his duties, what can we say with relative assurance would have been the effect this would have had on the character of modern Israel, the shaping of their relations with their Arab neighbors (if I may be allowed to skirt IvP here) and their mandate and reason for being? Would Einstein's respect and legend have intimidated any of his opponents into not daring to wear him down into going along with their vision of Israel, along with his respected moral conviction, or would he have eventually succumbed to realpolitik and disillusionment?

Nearly every single time when an idealist goes up against racist/heavily conservative ideologies within his own powerbase, he loses. Unless he has significant support of his own. I fail to see how Einstein would be any different in this. Especially considering the hold the religious terrorists had over early Israel.

Besides, isn't the Israeli President a mostly ceremonial post with no real power? It's the Prime Minister and the Knesset who call the shots. No matter how proactive he tries to be, he'll have no real sway on Israeli politics.

Plus, Einstein was offered the Israeli presidency on November 1952, and he died on April 1955. So, basically, it would've been just a little over two years as a figurehead had he chosen to take the job. I fail to see how that would really sway the direction of Israeli politics in any real long-term sense. And that's provided that the stress of trying to be some sort of activist president doesn't end up killing him faster.

Thanas wrote:Nearly every single time when an idealist goes up against racist/heavily conservative ideologies within his own powerbase, he loses. Unless he has significant support of his own. I fail to see how Einstein would be any different in this. Especially considering the hold the religious terrorists had over early Israel.

Is there not any chance that they would've simply have been so awed by Einstein and his reputation, they wouldn't have dared to go ahead as normally? When W. E. B. Du Bois was put on trial for being a communist spy, Einstein volunteered as a character witness and didn't even have to travel to where the trial was taking place - the court shuddered, adjourned and the case was dismissed shortly thereafter. Whatever else Einstein may lack, he wasn't lacking in respect.

Ilya Muromets wrote:Besides, isn't the Israeli President a mostly ceremonial post with no real power? It's the Prime Minister and the Knesset who call the shots. No matter how proactive he tries to be, he'll have no real sway on Israeli politics.

Was that by design or did the post become that way, though? And would Einstein's appointment change that?

Plus, Einstein was offered the Israeli presidency on November 1952, and he died on April 1955. So, basically, it would've been just a little over two years as a figurehead had he chosen to take the job. I fail to see how that would really sway the direction of Israeli politics in any real long-term sense. And that's provided that the stress of trying to be some sort of activist president doesn't end up killing him faster.

What he doesn't accomplish in his life, his statements and his legend may inspire others to undertake later on. I realize that at this point I've probably gone where there is little or no realistic way to make a case for this, but I thought it might be possible that he would've swelled the ranks of the humanitarian Israeli left and steeled their resolve against the fundamentalists for years to come, sort of like Eisenhower making his final remarks before leaving office ones of caution against the military-industrial complex inspiring activists after he left.

TithonusSyndrome wrote:

Ilya Muromets wrote:Besides, isn't the Israeli President a mostly ceremonial post with no real power? It's the Prime Minister and the Knesset who call the shots. No matter how proactive he tries to be, he'll have no real sway on Israeli politics.

Was that by design or did the post become that way, though? And would Einstein's appointment change that?

By design. Without a monarch, the head-of-state role in parliamentary systems is filled by either a popularily-elected or legislatively-chosen president. The post is designed to fill certain formal governmental and ceremonial functions: to appoint judges to the courts, to officially sign parilamentary bills into law, to "choose" (with the consultation of the parties) the Prime Minister, to appoint and receive ambassadors, and to formally dissolve the parliament upon request of the PM prior to elections. The Basic Law specifically forbids the president from weighing in politically on any issue that may divide the public, in order to preserve the apolitical status of the office. In semi-presidential systems, there is a bit more actual function and a slighlty greater degree of responsibility held by the president; though the assembly and prime minister still hold the actual power of government.

TithonusSyndrome wrote:

Plus, Einstein was offered the Israeli presidency on November 1952, and he died on April 1955. So, basically, it would've been just a little over two years as a figurehead had he chosen to take the job. I fail to see how that would really sway the direction of Israeli politics in any real long-term sense. And that's provided that the stress of trying to be some sort of activist president doesn't end up killing him faster.

What he doesn't accomplish in his life, his statements and his legend may inspire others to undertake later on. I realize that at this point I've probably gone where there is little or no realistic way to make a case for this, but I thought it might be possible that he would've swelled the ranks of the humanitarian Israeli left and steeled their resolve against the fundamentalists for years to come, sort of like Eisenhower making his final remarks before leaving office ones of caution against the military-industrial complex inspiring activists after he left.

The example you want, really, is Ghandi: likewise a man who became a great political figurehead after his death. Then again, Ghandi had decades to build his reputation, and a lot more political skill than Einstein.

TithonusSyndrome wrote:

Thanas wrote:Nearly every single time when an idealist goes up against racist/heavily conservative ideologies within his own powerbase, he loses. Unless he has significant support of his own. I fail to see how Einstein would be any different in this. Especially considering the hold the religious terrorists had over early Israel.

Is there not any chance that they would've simply have been so awed by Einstein and his reputation, they wouldn't have dared to go ahead as normally? When W. E. B. Du Bois was put on trial for being a communist spy, Einstein volunteered as a character witness and didn't even have to travel to where the trial was taking place - the court shuddered, adjourned and the case was dismissed shortly thereafter. Whatever else Einstein may lack, he wasn't lacking in respect.

Reputation? Reputation is going to over-awe one of the most paranoid, militaristic, and hostile governments in the last and current centuries? 1950s Israel on average makes McCarthyist America at its most paranoid look like trusting schoolchildren. Do you have any idea about the sheer ferocity of the sociopolitical forces that drove Israel at that time? Israel at that time was still a decade old, propped up mostly by foreign military aid, and surrounded by neighbors who openly resented its existence and made no secret about wanting to wipe it off the map.

For all intents and purposes the feeling that drove Israeli politics and an overwhelming majority of public opinion at that time (and still does today in many ways) was basically "Israel must survive, fuck everyone else." They firmly believed that peace with their neighbors was only possible through having the ability to smash their neighbors into pieces, and were just as racist and hostile as the neighboring who kept trying to invade and undermine them. That kind of poisonous hate and paranoia won't disappear thanks to one man, nor will it awe them into backing down.

Einstein managed to pull his weight during W. E. B. Du Bois because, as bad as America got back then, it still had a government that could be swayed by public opinion if enough outraged people bugged enough congressmen into making a lot of noise on their behalf. Einstein was a beloved celebrity as much as a popular scientist, and enough Americans would have been pissed enough to make it politically expedient for politicians to go with the flow should the government have tried to mess with him. And, even then, that only influenced a single trial, it never really derailed the crazy McCarthyist paranoia as a whole.

In Israel, he won't have that luxury. Sure, the Israelis liked him a lot, but they liked the idea of Israel more. Israeli pblic opinion at the time was overwhelmingly in support of the Knesset's militarism, and Einstein would have found little public support--reputation or otherwise--should he have spoken against its policies.

Random question, you DO know that Gaza and the West bank only came under Israel's aegis after 1967, right?

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Random question, you DO know that Gaza and the West bank only came under Israel's aegis after 1967, right?

Was that question directed at me? If so, yes. Why?

Also, looking at my previous post, ghetto edits:

That's supposed to be "less than a decade old" and "during W. E. B. Du Bois's trial."

He was a genius of unparalleled caliber in the field of physics, and other disciplines. However, I do know that he was remarkably bad in social situations.

Just because someone is really good at one thing, does not mean that that skill translates well to other fields.