When hearing Zionists like Walzer speak to his tribesmen, I find it useful to imagine the Gentile community listening in. What must they think of their neighbors? Should they trust them when the chips are down? All this talk of being "in-but-not-of" a society is usually couched in terms of the (heroic) psychic burden of the Jew. But it can't be easy for his neighbors either.

"There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America." (Chaim Weizmann at the First Zionist Congress)

Certainly not in a society that inherited a "religiously inspired culture."

"He never used the word Palestine or Palestinians."

Perhaps because those were "grim bases for Jewish identity," that ought to be folded and sent into oblivion.

Jewish alienation is not a modern trend. Even the flavors of it are toppings.

Now having lived outside of a dominantly Jewish community, I regard my Jewish community as more important and native than when I lived in a suburban New York upper-middle class Jewish "ghetto".

My family had similar experiences, of coming to regard Jewish identity and even Zionism as more important as we grew older, even conflicting with longstanding philosophical underpinnings.

I think the distinction of intimate vs critical modes of thinking are important to understanding Jewish identity and the apparent ommission of "self-reflection" or "apology".

An intimate view is entirely subjective, a good thing if sincere.

The question of how do we be a good "we", rather than a cruel "we", is also a good question, but it is a second question.

Mr. Witty, are you using some kind of algorithmic text generator?

Existential being in general, and the next qualifying step of accepting that one is Jewish (if one is), is intrinsic, unconditional.

External events don't change it. One may wish that Israel did something different (and act to affect that), but it does not change the inherent issues of identity.

The ritual of Passover coming up, are an internal struggling ritual for definitions of Jewish self-identification. You can see it in the various seders that different Jews practise.

There are universal metaphorical elements to all seders, AND there are unavoidable parochial. "God brought US out of Egypt" (not them, not history), is asserted.

There is some identity, seeded by an historical (or even mythical) event or period.

The difference between an alienated Jew and a self-identifying Jew with questions and ethical concerns, are in the character of identity ultimately.

It is an important recognition, with many wonderful possibilities.

Being Jewish (by some definition a native urge/obligation to make things whole – tikkun olam) is a wonderful commitment with no ambiguity.

Risking oversimplifying, both the objectivist dogma and the trivial nationalist dogma, conflict with our identity and even role.

I'm not sure "possessing a native urge toward making things whole" is going to work as a definition of Jewishness. First because so many people who identify themselves as Jewish possess no such thing, and second because so many who do possess such a thing are not Jewish.

The only thing that unites all who choose to think of themselves as Jewish is the conviction that the rest of God's creation wants to persecute them.

Its not a definition. There are many that are not Jewish that seek to work to make things whole, thankfully.

It is a characteristic of full Jewish identification though, our nature and our obligation.

"The only thing that unites all who choose to think of themselves as Jewish is the conviction that the rest of God's creation wants to persecute them."

As Phillip reported Walzer's comments, that is incidental to Jewish identity in fact. It is observed that Jews have felt and been persecuted. While genocide does not justify harms to others (and among most that have actually experienced genocide are particularly sensitive to harms on anyone), it also cannot be forgotten and should not.

It is a reminder of the horrors that are possible in the name of ideology, or religion, or any other dogma.

When you use the term "only" in your statement, you are insulting David.

Its something that you can't possibly know what is in the hearts and minds of "all" Jews, or any group.

Please don't indulge in the permission to ridicule a community in that way.

"While genocide does not justify harms to others (and among most that have actually experienced genocide are particularly sensitive to harms on anyone), it also cannot be forgotten and should not." Richard Witty refutes Phil Weiss and Michael Waltzer

Richard Witty insists on the same old Likud propaganda line that we've heard so many times on this blog that it's hard to get up the energy to react to it anymore. Then Richard goes further in his 'sensitive Jew' posture to deliver the usual Likud warning about what happens when gentiles question the ethnic cleansing of Palestine:

"It is a reminder of the horrors that are possible in the name of ideology, or religion, or any other dogma."

Please. Spare us.

I should answer in RW style (cf. the other post):
If the relationship between jews and humans does not specifically resemble the normal way peoples interact (not a definition of which is better or worse), then to use the word "people" is confusing. A "swarm" comes to mind. In fact other less benign names come to mind.

Now for the "makings things whole" part:

"Being Jewish (by some DEFINITION a native urge/obligation to make things whole – tikkun olam) is a wonderful commitment with no ambiguity."
RW

"Its not a DEFINITION. There are many that are not Jewish that seek to work to make things whole, thankfully."
RW

Sure you and you swarm make things a whole mess, RW.