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.
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.