A country doesn't have an ideology. People and parties do.
People assign different meanings to it. Many people are aware of the differences in liberalism between the US and Europe, but also within Europe there are many differences. Liberalism in the UK differs quite a lot from Sweden and the Netherlands. And within countries conservative Christian parties might say they are liberal, as well as centre leftwinged parties. Yet, they might find it hard to collaborate and have strong disagreements on the role of the state.
Liberals can easily have entirely different views on the conflict between Palestine and Israel.
Liberalism doesn't tell you exactly what to prioritise here. For sure is that the establishment of settlements isn't very liberal, and violence against civilizations isn't either. But liberalism doesn't dictate a solution.
You're telling me that a constitution is not, by definition, an ideological document?
I don't understand how you can live in this world where you recognise that the parties and people that make up the state apparatus are ideological but the state itself is not. There's no magical step where the functioning of these explicitly ideological people somehow becomes non-ideoligical. Believing otherwise is itself an ideological position, namely a liberal one.
Just because different lib parties have disagreements doesn't mean they aren't liberal. Almost without exception they 'recognise Isreal's right to defend itself'. They all implicitly, if not explicitly, support a settler-colonial apartheid state. And what would be more fitting than liberals supporting such a state? When it was liberal thinkers like Locke who's theory served to justify the British settler-colonial project in the Americas.
Countries that say they are liberal democracies can't figure out whether they are liberals or not?
A country doesn't have an ideology. People and parties do.
People assign different meanings to it. Many people are aware of the differences in liberalism between the US and Europe, but also within Europe there are many differences. Liberalism in the UK differs quite a lot from Sweden and the Netherlands. And within countries conservative Christian parties might say they are liberal, as well as centre leftwinged parties. Yet, they might find it hard to collaborate and have strong disagreements on the role of the state.
Liberals can easily have entirely different views on the conflict between Palestine and Israel.
Liberalism doesn't tell you exactly what to prioritise here. For sure is that the establishment of settlements isn't very liberal, and violence against civilizations isn't either. But liberalism doesn't dictate a solution.
You're telling me that a constitution is not, by definition, an ideological document?
I don't understand how you can live in this world where you recognise that the parties and people that make up the state apparatus are ideological but the state itself is not. There's no magical step where the functioning of these explicitly ideological people somehow becomes non-ideoligical. Believing otherwise is itself an ideological position, namely a liberal one.
Just because different lib parties have disagreements doesn't mean they aren't liberal. Almost without exception they 'recognise Isreal's right to defend itself'. They all implicitly, if not explicitly, support a settler-colonial apartheid state. And what would be more fitting than liberals supporting such a state? When it was liberal thinkers like Locke who's theory served to justify the British settler-colonial project in the Americas.
shut the fuck up liberal
Death to Israel
Death to America