‘Einstein on Israel’ reveals essential history of debate over Zionism and a Jewish state

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 47 Comments

Homepage_einstein Fred Jerome begins his new book, Einstein on Israel and Zionism, with a great quote from Albert Einstein to a close friend, “Though everybody knows me, there are very few people who really know me. I am a revolutionary.”  Jerome’s book goes on to prove this very point. The book is a collection of Einstein’s letters, speeches and thoughts about Zionism and Israel, starting in 1919 until the end of life in 1955 (The translations were done by Michael Schiffmann, who includes a moving translator’s note written during the recent Israeli attacks on Gaza). These texts show Einstein’s shifting opinions and relationship to Zionism and his eventual dismay that Israel had become the “captive of narrow nationalism” that he had feared.

The book does a wonderful job at making it clear what an important figure Einstein was (“the world’s first international media star”) and how important his thinking was on this issue. One of the most interesting parts of the book to me was the incredible exchange of ideas and debates over the issue of Zionism and Israel that Einstein took part in. The book contains correspondence between Einstein and members of government, with luminaries of his day, and between him and Zionist leadership (as well as members of the Irgun) debating the Zionist movement. 

There are so many good passages you should go buy it, but here is one portion I particularly liked. It is from Einstein’s testimony to the Angl0-American Committee on Inquiry on Palestine in January, 1946. Here he is talking with Judge ‘Texas Joe’ Hutcheson, the American Chairman of the Committee:

Judge Hutcheson: It has been told to our committee by the Zionists that the passionate heart of every Jew will never be satisfied until they have a Jewish state in Palestine. It is contended, I suppose, that they must have a majority over the Arabs. It has been told to us by the Arab representatives that the Arabs are not going to permit such condition as that, they they will not permit having themselves converted from a majority to a minority.

Dr. Einstein: Yes.

Judge Hutcheson: I have asked these various persons if it is essential to the right or the privilege of the Jews to go to Palestine, if it is essential to real Zionism that a setup be fixed so that the Jews have a Jewish state and a Jewish majority without regard to the Arab view. Do you share that point of view, or do you think the matter can be handled on any other basis?

Dr. Einstein: Yes, absolutely. The state idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with many difficulties and a narrow-mindedness. I believe it is bad.

Judge Hutcheson: Isn’t it spiritual and ethical – I do not mean this particular Zionist movement, I do not mean the idea of insisting that a Jewish state must be created – isn’t it anachronistic?

Dr. Einstein: In my opinion, yes. I am against it . . .

Einstein opposed partition and supported a bi-national state that would ensure equal rights for Palestinians and Jews. This testimony is followed in the book by one of many letters of dismay and protest from the Jewish community in response to Einstein’s position. Maurice Dunay wrote, “Your statement in opposition to a Jewish homeland in Palestine at this tragic moment in Jewish history fills me with a certain horror and sincere doubt as to your mental processes.”

The book reminded me of Hannah Arendt’s The Jewish Writings, in that is shows that there has never been consensus within the Jewish community on Zionism or Israel. In fact, there was a vibrant and intense debate over these issue both inside and outside the Jewish community (which Judge Hutcheson’s questioning attests to). It is also striking to me that even in the 1940s Einstein, and Arendt, could see the looming disaster of establishing a Jewish state on Palestinian land. While Einstein’s call for equal rights and equal power between Palestinians and Jews remains an inspiration today, it’s sad that what was “revolutionary” in his day, remains so today.

47 Responses

  1. RichardWitty
    May 28, 2009, 3:20 pm

    We would need a skillful interview with Einstein to clarify his actual views, in context. For example, if asked, "If you had the choice of a Jewish state or no allowed Jewish migration to Palestine/Israel, would you prefer no Jewish immigration?" I expect that Einstein would have consistently stated "a Jewish state". The message of the content of the essays is not, "Israel is bad", but that THIS is the design time, the time when we who are considering proposal actually consider the mutual needs of the situation. So, if you propose a single democratic state, or a multi-national single democratic state with nation laws in a context of federal (the flip of language of the US, "states within nation"), how do you suggest getting there? It is a question that I raised directly to Ali Abunimeh, and will continue to. That is that my understanding of the way to achieve reconciliation, some integration, and full civil rights for minorities in each community, is to encourage the civil aspects of collaboration (ecology, public health, culture/music/art/language/literature, sport, academia) RATHER than political agitation. The two goals are mutually exclusive, potentially schizophrenic. Hating Zionists, while wanting to become one people/one nation with them.

  2. Citizen
    May 28, 2009, 3:35 pm

    "Einstein’s opposition to Israel was widely known and reported on during his life. In fact, the myth of Einstein’s support of Israel was born the day after Einstein’s death in his obituary in The New York Times, which shamelessly wrote that he “championed” the establishment of the Jewish state. This contradicted decades of reporting from the “Paper of Record.” Jerome provides some examples, including a 1930 article headlined “Einstein attacks British Zion Policy,” a 1938 article stating Einstein was “Against Palestine State” and a 1946 article stating Einstein “Bars Jewish State.”" ” target=”_blank”>http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/05/ei…

  3. ThorsProvoni
    May 28, 2009, 3:40 pm

    Obviously, Einstein was not clamoring to emigrate to Palestine even though he could certainly have left Germany for there instead of for the USA. More to the point, Witty provides a completely dishonest description of the issue of Jewish emigration from Europe. Obviously, a bit more immigration to the USA would have been good, but it is important to remember that Jews were hardly desirable immigrants during the 30s (in the midst of the depression) because of their involvement in mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide: Jewish Peril: 1933 Versus 2009. The vast majority of Jews managed to get out of Germany by 1939. After 1939 Jews could not get out of Europe, and after WW2 the 300,000 Jewish DPs could easily been resettled elsewhere without the theft of Palestine from the native population. (Zionists inflated the number of DPs in order to scare the USA with the idea that it was going to be inundated with Jewish refugees). As for reconciliation, thieves don't have the right to expect reconciliation until they return what they stole. The native Palestinian population must be repatriated and their property must be returned to them. Jews have to start showing some remorse for acting as a Tätervolk for the last 150 years or more. The international Zionist leadership must be handed over to Nuremberg-style Tribunals for trial, conviction and long imprisonment or execution. All Zionist assets must be seized to compensate everyone that has suffered damages on account of Zionist fraud or depredations.

  4. uri
    May 28, 2009, 3:53 pm

    "The two goals are mutually exclusive, potentially schizophrenic. Hating Zionists, while wanting to become one people/one nation with them." Disagree. You get reconciliation with racial supremacists by militantly combating it, like the ANC did in South Africa. If you're just nicey-nicey, these people will see it as weakness and a reason to hold on to their racist beliefs. You have to do civil engagement like you described, to show foolish people who might think that cooperation/integration is impossible the error of their beliefs, but you have to fight the racism, to show the racists that it can't continue.

  5. Craig11
    May 28, 2009, 4:00 pm

    And what is the basis of your expectation that Einstein would have chosen a Jewish state over no Jewish immigration to Palestine? Aren't you just projecting your own desires onto him now that he is no longer here to speak for himself? The basic problem of the modern state of Israel is that it is, in essence, the last gasp of European colonialism. At a time when England and other European nations were giving independence to their far-away colonies, turning leadership over to the indigenous peoples of those lands, a bunch of European Zionists decided to invade Palestine and set up their own colony there, the indigenous people be damned. There was no way to do this "fairly" or "equitably" because the entire project was unfair and inequitable by its very nature. Today, Israel exists and a solution will have to be achieved that recognizes that reality, just as it is not reasonable to expect white Australians to give their country back to the aborigines. Whether there ends up being two states or one is less crucial than the question of whether that state or those states guarantee the rights of all their citizens, Jewish, Arab, or otherwise. The problem for the Zionists is that if this happens, Israel as a Jewish state will cease to exist, because a "Jewish state" as such depends on Jewish privilege and is inconsistent with modern concepts of liberal democracy. So, not surprisingly, Zionists are the biggest obstacle to really solving the problems in Palestine, because really solving those problems means the end of the Zionist project.

  6. M.M.
    May 28, 2009, 4:15 pm

    Nobody that values human rights can defend a two-tiered society such as Israel's. Nobody who believes in international law and national sovereignty can defend an expansionist, war-inciting state such as Israel. Richard Witty has always demonstrated which are his paramount values. Alas, they aren't human rights and international law.

  7. Craig11
    May 28, 2009, 4:20 pm

    It's delusional to think that any of that is going to happen, any more than Australia is going to be given back to the aborigines, England to the Celts, or California to the Spanish (to say nothing of the native American tribes). A solution has to be found that recognizes the past but focuses on the future. You are not going to get the Jews out of Palestine or Netanyahu's head on a pike and I don't think either are necessary. What is needed is a solution, whether one state or two, that provides guarantees everyone's rights going forward. This involves the end of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state, since such a thing is inherently racist and cannot be maintained along with equal rights, considering current population projections that would make Arabs the majority of the population in the not-so-distant future. Thus, naturally, Zionists are the most dedicated opponents of really solving the region's problems. This fact has to be taken into account for a realistic plan to be devised, a plan which necessarily will involve pressuring the Zionists in various ways. Basically they need to have the point made clear to them that a truly democratic Israel with equal rights for all citizens is the only option they have.

  8. thedhimmi
    May 28, 2009, 4:28 pm

    " (The translations were done by Michael Schiffmann, who includes a moving translator's note written during the recent Israeli attacks on Gaza). " Was there a moving translator's note when Hamas was bombing Sderot on a daily basis? How about after the Passover Massacre?

  9. Ed
    May 28, 2009, 4:49 pm

    The theory behind a Jewish state is sound. Political Judaism is a nation, behaves like a nation, pursues it's interests as a nation, and wages war as a nation. If it doesn't have its own state, it pursues its national agenda as a virtual nation in the diaspora. The idea behind Israel was that Political Judaism would transfer in its entirety to Israel. The flaw is that this did not happen, and Political Judaism maintained its diaspora incarnation and its Zionist one as well. The diaspora incarnation of Political Judaism (the virtual nation, ie the Israel lobby) is what has enabled the physical nation (Israel) to abuse its status as a nation. Indeed, the diaspora virtual nation has encouraged these abuses because it doesn't have any physical skin in the game itself, so it can play out its Jewish toy soldier fantasies at little risk to itself. The answer is to unite Political Judaism in Israel, and make it illegal in the diaspora. This will defang its worst characteristics and dry up the diaspora shadow government operations that enable Israeli abuses.

  10. Craig11
    May 28, 2009, 5:04 pm

    In theory, if you had an overwhelmingly Jewish population that was indigenous to a particular land, then it would probably have been a natural historical development for there to be a "Jewish state" there in the same sense as there is a "Japanese state" in Japan. The problem is that that theory isn't applicable to the modern state of Israel, the indigenous population of which consisted almost entirely of Arabs before the Zionist invasion. I also find thoroughly repellent your notion that anyone's right to speak and act politically on any issue should be restricted. There is this little document called the Constitution of the United States that it might benefit you to review, particularly an addendum known as the First Amendment.

  11. Citizen
    May 28, 2009, 5:19 pm

    Einstein was a humanist; his ultimate goal was peace and justice for all; he definitely was against militant nationalism and thought nationalism itself was a disease. He never favored political Zionism, that is, the state of Israel. His zionism was spiritual. He worked always for cultural zionism, a center for it in the Mandate land. Witty's either/or question is thus disingenuous. On the other hand, Witty's approach asks questions Einstein himself was perplexed by- as a refugee from NAZI Germany, he looked aghast as he saw Israeli fascist parties arise. See here, and also note President Kennedy's take on Begin back in the day: ” target=”_blank”>http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/oth…

  12. Citizen
    May 28, 2009, 5:34 pm

    Sderot lies on land formerly comprising the village of Najd and another arab village–both dating back to the late 1500s; in 1948 armed Jewish troops took that land, dispossessing the arabs and other non-Jewish folk. How about a moving translator's note on that bit of history? ” target=”_blank”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najd,_Gaza

  13. Citizen
    May 28, 2009, 5:39 pm

    Yes. Even Begin, the terrorist, said as much. HAMAS has more reason than Begin ever had to claim the land by force of arms–HAMAS never had to go back over 2,0000 to stake a land claim; why should HAMAS rubber-stamp a foreign G-D?

  14. Ed
    May 28, 2009, 5:40 pm

    The US Constitution does not grant the right for foreign nations to set up shadow government in the United States. In fact, such conduct is defined as treason. Political Judaism is an arm of a foreign government — the Jewish State of Israel. If Political Judaism existed as a mere religious entity that did not engage in subversive conduct, there would be no problem. But this is not the case. If the Soviet Union were to set up a Communist apparatus pursuing Soviet interests at the expense of American interests within the United States, and plotting to undermine the interests of the American people and the US government during the Cold War on behalf of the Soviet Union, such an apparatus would have been dismantled. Political Judaism should be dismantled in the US. We have already been attacked on 9/11 and lied into the Iraq war as a consequence of its subversions; we can’t afford to treat it with kid gloves any longer. Political Judaism and its collaborators have no respect for the US Constitution whatsoever.

  15. tommy
    May 28, 2009, 5:40 pm

    It really does not matter what a German physicist thought about a Jewish state, even if he had misgivings about it. Einstein might have been a great thinker about energy and time, but his thoughts on a Jewish state in Palestine are no more legitimate than anyone else's who was not originally a Palestinian. Palestinians are consistently left out of the discourse deciding their fate, and is a major source of the conflict.

  16. JES49
    May 28, 2009, 5:56 pm

    Good morning Adam! As we say here in Israel "What, you think you discovered America?" There has been a longstanding debate on what Herzl meant when he titiled his pamphlet Der Judenstaat, because this has two possible meanings in German: The Jewish State and the State of the Jews (i.e. a homeland). Einstein, as most German Jewish intellectuals opted for the second, along with Martin Buber and Judah Magnes in the US. Were these figures Zionists? Of course they were to a greater or lesser degree. They simply weren't "political" Zionists. And, some would argue, that they were not realists. They just weren't ready to commit national suicide for the sake of cultural Zionism, so this was held out as a goal for some time in the future. Martin Buber is an interesting case, in that he was the spritual influence of the left-wing Hashomer Hazair movement, who believed in a binational state with full equality. Not only were the members of the movement founders of most of the early kibbutzim in Palestine, but they were also among the first to volunteer for the Jewish Brigades in WWII and for the palmah. In fact, the majority of the left wing at the time of Partition – Mapam, Ahdut Avodah – favored a binational state. They just weren't willing to commit national suicide for the sake of their cultural Zionism, but held this out as an ideal for sometime in the future.

  17. dalybean
    May 28, 2009, 6:09 pm

    The First Amendment to the Constitution has been subverted by the Israel Lobby as they want to make it a crime to criticize Israel (by defining it as anti-semitism) yet make it national policy to criticize all of Islam and jail and defund all anti-Israel critics and even those who would help the people living in nations they consider their enemies. A partial solution to the problem is to require all arms of the Israeli government to register as foreign agents under FARA.

  18. muzz
    May 28, 2009, 6:15 pm

    interesting, thanks for the short review

  19. Ed
    May 28, 2009, 6:26 pm

    If Israel is dismantled, the Jewish nation will merely regroup (likely in the United States) and begin plotting revenge on Arabs, Muslims and those responsible for its dismantling. In Bolshevism, it has demonstrated its capacity to overthrow governments and carry out mass murder against those whom it perceives to have wronged it, regardless of any rationale behind those wrongs. Unless you are prepared to intern Political Judaism in its entirety, dismantling Israel would ultimately likely result in a humanitarian catastrophe possibly on an unprecedented scale, because the left-liberal West has demonstrated that it doesn't have the stomach, balls or brains to keep Political Judaism in check. My relatively moderate approach is a means of attaining the best outcome in the bad situation that the airheads governing the Statist, post-Christian West have allowed to fester and worsen for decades because they lacked the courage to confront Political Judaism, and lacked the integrity to turn down its bribes, making left-liberalism and Right Statism integral parties to the current bad situation, the Democrats in particular.

  20. Ed
    May 28, 2009, 6:51 pm

    Good point. Here's an example of what you are talking about. Islamic charities that raise money that ends up in the hands of Hamas are prosecuted for aiding "terrorists" (these poor schmucks were just sentenced to 65 years in prison for trying to help Palestinians via Hamas); ” target=”_blank”>http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idU… whereas Jews who raise money for Israeli and Zionist terrorism are celebrated by the corrupt Statist "American" Establishment as heroes. The Soviet government also eventually wound up waging a war against its own people. The increasingly authoritarian “American” federal government is headed in that same direction. Common denominator? Political Judaism pulling the strings.

  21. dana
    May 28, 2009, 6:55 pm

    I agree. We should all start referring to Sderot as Najd. Let israelis + dhimmi sympathizers figure it out – they can get some good information on what happened to the original inhabitants of najd from the zochrot organization in Israel.

  22. Dana
    May 28, 2009, 7:04 pm

    Just how do you propose to do that? kennedy tried (though he didn't get a chance to quite see it through before being assassinated). But the then jewish lobby (it went under another name then) just regrouped under a new name. Registering it as a foreign agent is a laudable goal. But they'll just pull the same ploy again, and besides, who's gonna force such a requirement through? is there enough will to do the right thing in the entire land? Unfortunately, IMO, the americans become a nation of sheep when it comes to doing the right thing. Were it not the case, there would have been a far greater clamor to punish the torturers, to uphold the constitution and possibly to pay reparations to Iraq for essentially obliterating their country. Ask most people on the streets of America and you'll find that they care only marginally more for the lives of arabs (or anybody dark anywhere) than they do in Israel. The difference is that israelis don't much care for american lives period – of any color or creed. Unless they happen to be jewish. Then they say they care (and sometimes even believe it). Ah – the joys of being a true cynic!

  23. Fineline
    May 28, 2009, 7:17 pm

    Interesting point, Ed. Selective perception and selective indignation iare not confined to the israel-Palestine issue. The Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq has been harboring the PKK, Kurdish guerrillas from Turkey for years now despite the fact that the PKK is on the U.S. "terror" list. And the KRG has not been sanctioned for so doing. Why not? The U.S. has been using an arm of the PKK known as PJAK to attack Iran. Justice, American style is not blind, it is bought.

  24. Ed
    May 28, 2009, 7:51 pm

    Average Americans are no better or worse than any other people from around the world. In fact, increasingly, they are a reflection of different people from around the world. It is America’s corrupt elites, using the Leviathan State as their mechanism, to perpetrate the crimes, miscarriages of justice, and epic exploitation that they have. Had the country been kept within the Constitutional framework designed by the Founders, we wouldn’t be confronted with any of these problems now, and the world would be a very different (and better) place. We need to go back to the Constitutional restraints (formerly imposed upon the federal government, hyper social-engineering activists, and would-be Plutocrats like the Israel lobby and its tentacles) that once kept the country balanced and moderate.

  25. Marion
    May 28, 2009, 7:53 pm

    "…Hating Zionists, while wanting to become one people/one nation with them…"Richard Witty Richard why do you insist that those who want to become one people/one nation with the Jewish Israelis cannot at the same time hate Zionism? In your thinking, are those who believe in a one state solution not allowed to separate Zionists from Jews and vice versa?

  26. delurker
    May 28, 2009, 8:38 pm
  27. Mooser
    May 28, 2009, 8:53 pm

    "Aren't you just projecting your own desires onto him now that he is no longer here to speak for himself?" Craig, the visions and hallucinations of ziocaine habitues often become very real to them. If you dream it, you can achieve it, sort of thing As far as Witty's concerned, we can now put his imagined Einstein quote in a biography of the great scientist.

  28. RichardWitty
    May 28, 2009, 10:16 pm

    You get reconciliation if there is willingness to reconcile, from both sides. Otherwise you get endless war and suppression in a pendulum swing.

  29. RichardWitty
    May 28, 2009, 10:21 pm

    My basis is the hundreds of lectures that Einstein gave on Zionism between 1920's and 1948. "When President Chaim Weizmann died in 1952, Einstein was asked to be Israel's second president, but he declined, stating that he had "neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings." [74] He wrote: "I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. "" "OUR state."

  30. RichardWitty
    May 28, 2009, 10:22 pm

    Its best to not revise. Its wonderful to applaud Einstein's humanism, but to use it to imagine that he advocated for something that you or the author of the book do precisely, is fraudulent.

  31. RichardWitty
    May 28, 2009, 10:23 pm

    They won't succeed at convincing a majority of currently mostly Zionists to join with a movement that hates their sensibilities.

  32. LeaNder22
    May 28, 2009, 10:30 pm

    The vast majority of Jews managed to get out of Germany by 1939. I've come across really peculiar and ultimately unanswerable cases. One couple comes to mind. The man is arrested and sent to the camps. The wife gets him out by providing a complete set of all necessary papers. A multitude, but basically she can show them they could leave any day for a country that has accepted and certified their immigration, she even has the tickets for passage on the ship. The man is allowed to return to his wife and they never leave. There are cases of people that left and returned probably hoping the Nazis wouldn't last. The more you look into details the more complex it gets. But many left really early, that's true concerning most of the friends of my mother's family. Without one single exception they all went to the States.

  33. DICKERSON3870
    May 28, 2009, 11:38 pm

    A COUPLE OF EINSTEIN QUOTATIONS: "Where dull-witted clansmen of our tribe were praying aloud, their faces turned to the wall, their bodies swaying to and fro. A pathetic sight of men with a past but without a future." (Regarding his visit to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, February 3, 1923) "Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us." SOURCE – ” target=”_blank”>http://groups.google.com.mx/group/soc.culture.eur…

  34. LeaNder22
    May 28, 2009, 11:51 pm

    I have to admit these statements start to make me very, very angry. Balance? ************************************************************************************************** ” target=”_blank”>http://www.brandeis.edu/hbi/614/article6a.html Whose Battle is this? … Within Israel there is a virulent tradition of racism against Arabs and against Muslims. Within Palestine there is a virulent tradition of antisemitism. ************************************************************************************************** So they are simply antisemites? How convenient. While the image of Israelis killing children is simply blood libel in a new dress. From Bandeis: Speaking out against Anti-Semitism ” target=”_blank”>http://www.brandeis.edu/hbi/614/ David Hirsh, Goldsmith University of London, Department of Sociology ” target=”_blank”>http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/sociology/staff/hirsh…

  35. Jacobwolfen
    May 29, 2009, 2:13 am

    The counbtry was never balanced. Only an insane retard would ever think it was.

  36. Yoni C.
    May 29, 2009, 2:18 am

    Except they are pussies and can't stand up to Israel. Might is Right especially in the ME. Hamas has no trouble fighting themselves, but when it comes to Israel they don't stand a chance. I don't remember Irgun members strapping themselves w/ bombs and blowing up babies.

  37. estebanfolsom
    May 29, 2009, 3:18 am

    i've been back a billion years and up around the bend i was there when it all began and also at the end i've been trying a million faces till i find one that fits i've been looking out thru these eyes to where eternity sits and haven't i heard a thousand names shooting thru space my way hasn't it been a hundred ages not one of thems yet to say i am beyond all your words and all your eyes can see no thought can reach no hand can touch what i might really be

  38. David Frum
    May 29, 2009, 6:04 am

    >Einstein opposed partition and supported a bi-national state that would ensure equal rights for Palestinians and Jews. This testimony is followed in the book by one of many letters of dismay and protest from the Jewish community in response to Einstein's position. Maurice Dunay wrote, "Your statement in opposition to a Jewish homeland in Palestine at this tragic moment in Jewish history fills me with a certain horror and sincere doubt as to your mental processes." LOL. Sanity Smears, the signature ad hominem attack used by ultrazionists against anyone who disagrees with them, was apparently developed right after the nakba and used against EINSTEIN!!!

  39. Strahl
    May 29, 2009, 6:51 am

    You're right, they just left their bombs in baskets while pretending to be Arabs visiting market places and cafes – then they'd run away while the bombs exploded and killed many civilians. They also tossed bombs into taxis/etc. Lawrence of Cyberia has a good article on these atrocities. Irgun/etc. were the ones who brought terrorism to the ME. How sanctimonious is it of the US and Israel to lecture anyone about how bad terrorism is. Even the Israeli army committed mass atrocities (rape/torture/massacres of entire villages/random killings for things like missing curfew).

  40. DICKERSON3870
    May 29, 2009, 11:30 am

    RE: a great quote from Albert Einstein to a close friend, "Though everybody knows me, there are very few people who really know me. I am a revolutionary." SEE: "Einstein's Ghost", by NellaSelim @ DailyKos, 05/28/09 (EXCERPT)…Einstein began speaking out against a nuclear arms race and opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb. After the Soviet Union exploded their own atomic bomb in 1949, Einstein spoke these words: "I believe America may totally succumb to the fearful militarization which engulfed Germany at the beginning of the 20th century. There is real danger that political power and the power to influence the minds of people will pass increasingly into the hands of the military, which is used to approaching all political problems from the point of view of military expediency. Because of America's supremacy, the military point of view is forced upon the world." and even more foreboding words: "In all countries power lies in the hands of ambitious power-hungry men. This is true whether the political system is dictatorial or democratic. Power relies not only on coercion, but on subtle persuasion and deception through the educational system and the media of public information…" ENTIRE POST – ” target=”_blank”>http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/28/73609…

  41. Yoni C
    May 29, 2009, 11:33 am

    Funny how Hamas feels the need to kill fellow Muslims

  42. Citizen
    May 29, 2009, 1:25 pm

    They didn't want a state; they abhorred nationalism; they wanted to work with the Arabs to initiate cultural zionism, that is, a center or two in the Mandate land to resurrect the higher purpose of zionism as an ethical enterprise first and foremost. Instead, political zionism took over, favoring a nation state favoring Jews to which diaspora Jews swore allegiance in deed, if not in professed secular creed. The concept of dual loyalty was a problem from the start. The political zionists chose to obfuscate this problem for international goy consumption, as they do down to this day. Instead of partnering with the cultural zionists who wanted to directly address Arabs for consensus sans any large influx of Jews except to the limited center or two of continued learning, the political zionists chose instead to only negotiate with the powers of the time, mainly the Brits and powerful Arab elites; then with the French, and the USA. They cultural zionists did not view themselves as risking "national suicide" but rather assuring a world consensus the Jews were good for the whole world–the political zionists chose might over right a la Goering et al, and as the USA has done for decades now, especially under Shrub & Chaney. Obama is the best antidote to this concept of peace sprouting from the barrel of a gun. Let's hope smart Jews see the light. Otherwise, I agree, as someone here posted, that Israel is just another doomed Crusader collective with limited shelf space in the long run.

  43. Marion
    May 29, 2009, 4:26 pm

    Zionist sensibilities? I think it is more like Zionist delusions than sensibilities Richard…

  44. uri
    May 29, 2009, 5:21 pm

    Exactly. And for mainstream Israel to will reconciliation, Jewish supremacy must be forcefully opposed.

  45. Kathleen
    May 31, 2009, 5:13 pm

    Thanks for sharing this. Einstein brilliant on many counts. what a just man

Leave a Reply