When I was young, Jewish organizations put their feet down about the use of the terms "good Jew" and "bad Jew." It was too divisive. But that didn't make the issue go away. I always felt like a bad Jew: I was interested mainly in non-Jewish culture, rarely went to synagogue, tried to be hip, and dated some non-Jews, married one. When I started writing on Jewish issues, my critics always said, "Why do you consider yourself a Jew?" or "The correct response to you is, 'Sayonara, go away.'" One editor said I should write a book called, Being a Bad Jew.
My guilt about this is not strictly my problem. I believe that Leon Soros got maumaued out of playing a leading role on Jewish politics because he was made to feel that he was not strongly-enough identified as a Jew. Good Jews hold their goodness over bad Jews. I just got a press release from the Rabbinical Assembly, the Conservative rabbis, bragging that the new Israeli ambassador to the U.S., is a Conservative Jew and so are the lion's share of AIPAC Jews.
At this week’s AIPAC conference in Washington where Dr. Oren spoke, the
overwhelming majority of rabbis who were in attendance are
Conservative.
“The numbers speak for themselves,” said Rabbi [Julie] Schonfeld. “On matters
of Israel, as well as the other pressing issues of the day,
Conservative rabbis predominate in public life."
I noticed this myself. A lot of people wearing yarmulkes. I don't think there's a lot of intermarriage among the AIPAC faithful. The alternative lobby, J Street, is aware of this too. A few weeks back, Jeremy Ben-Ami said at the 92d Street Y that his efforts are welcomed by "unaffiliated" Jews–people who didn't know where they could put their feelings about Israel because those feelings weren't welcome in the official Jewish community.
The point I'm getting at is that culturally and politically, the trend we're heralding on this site and embodying too, is the reclamation by bad Jews of their Jewish identity. Jewish identity used to be officially circumscribed. How many Jewish friends you have? Do you have a Christmas tree? Do you date non-Jews? And so forth. All questions drawing on Jewish law. And bad Jews became bad Jews because Jewish law had little bearing on their modern problems. (Or much of Jewish law anyway.) Which is why a lot of modern American Jews fell away. Especially with the horrifying occupation and the Iraq war, which had Jewish religious endorsement. A lot of neoconservatives are good Jews. Bill Kristol is. Jeffrey
Goldberg is an observant Jew, too. So is Tom Friedman, who wanted to
smash something in the Arab world, when he supported the Iraq war.
But the bad Jews were afraid to speak up about the Occupation. Because deep down, they felt guilty; they knew they were bad Jews. And the better Jews were taking care of things. That's what's changed. Now the bad Jews aren't getting pushed around so much. They know that the good Jews screwed things up–and maybe one reason they screwed things up was their definition of Jewishness, which is ethnocentric. (Though in fairness, a lot of good Jews, like Jerry Haber, have been leaders here.)
Bottom line. In the process of taking their political power, the bad Jews are going to remake Jewish identity on universalist terms. Being Jewish doesn't have to mean wearing a yarmulke and lighting candles on Friday night or even marrying a Jew. It could mean working for the American Jewish World Service. Or even just reading Kafka all the time and studying Jewish history and thought. So I guess I'm not really an assimilationist. AIPAC got me to take my stand, inside Jewish life.
Vimax pills are created by a professional team of doctors who have many years of experience, working to achieve the best penis enlargement pills on the market.
good jews will say: "israel has no right to exist. jews are not innocent." all else is gas.
let me get this straight. you want jews like yourself who are in favor of the long term disappearance of the jewish people to step forward and proclaim their views on israel, so that the long term disappearance will be given a boost by the short term disappearance of the jewish state?
Let me get this straight. You want goys who are in favor of universal humanism as top priority to step forward and proclaim their critical views on Israel's activities, so that they take the full heat of attack as "anti-semites" who merely want to gas more jews?
If your culture has value, and it does, it will survive. It survived 2000 years without a Jewish state. You folks will do fine, either without a Jewish state, or with one within the 1967 borders. Attempting to finish the ethnic cleansing, colonization, and planned eventual annexation of OPT will end Israel as a theocracy, and given how much damage it and its partisans have done to my country, I won't be heartbroken.
You are shooting yourself (and your point of view) in the foot by calling yourself a "bad Jew."
Did Malcolm X?
i think what Phil is saying is that this site is not actually interested in non-Jews at all (except possibly as marriage objects).
This is where I get confused. Is being a Jew a race or a religion? Good Jew / Bad Jew can apply to religion but it can't apply to race the same way. If a diaspora Indian loses his/her cultural values, he/she doesn't become a bad Indian in any way. It just doesn't make sense.
Shafiq, being a Jew is just a state of mind, but it needs cultural reinforcement — I can't just get up one morning and announce, "I'm a Jew!", I have to get a rabbi to rubber-stamp it. And rabbis come in concentric circles, such that if you get a non-orthodox rabbi to rubber-stamp it, an orthodox one will not recognise it, and if you get an orthodox one to rubber-stamp it, an ultra-orthodox one will still not recognise it — all of which plays hell with any desire you may have to marry anyone remotely Jewish, anywhere.
Not so much if the mixed couple simply get married by the local municipal clerk with such authority. Many have done so here in the USA.
yeah, but then they will never be able to avail themselves of any Jewish service from education to burial plots. Meanwhile, 'secular Jews,' as long as they continue to define themselves as such, constitute a parasitic cultural, intellectual, economic and political mafia in the countries of their adoption, whether they define themselves additionally as zionist or not — in fact, especially if not, if they are thorough-going assimilationists in every respect except that they go on thinking of themselves and each other as a 'tribe,' which means they will act as teams, which is what Phil is trying to promote here; "hey guys, we're a 'tribe', we're so fine, we can turn this country right around, on a dime, if we just pull together as a team." What this illustrates to me is that the idea of a secular Jewish group identity is fundamentally dishonest. In fact, it is because it is dishonest that it evokes 'anti-Semitism' as a racial reaction. One needs to address the religious question, because this is what Jewish identity fundamentally is. A non-religious Jew is an EX-JEW – there is no such thing as an atheist Jew, except as a racist fantasy, first on his part, then on the part of others who quite understandably oppose him.
Phil, while you contemplate your navel – is it Jewish? how does one tell? – I would remind your readers that a core American value is the separation of state from any "establishment of religion." The Equal Protection clause, adopted at the cost 550,000 American lives in the Civil War, added ethnic and racial blindness in the administration of our justice systems as a core value. Now every citizen is free to practice his or her own religion without interference from the government, and to experience and celebrate his or her own religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds as they interact and flow together in the larger American experience, but members of religious, racial and ethnic groups who wield power while celebrating their backgrounds will be perceived as racist or ethnocentric by non-members of their group adversely affected by that power. Exercising general political power in America in service to a religious, racial or ethnic group, and/or foreign power, as opposed to serving the general good of all citizens, is both illegal and in conflict with our fundamental American core values. Doing it and hiding it will amplify the outrage when it is exposed. Phil also asks why a panel of three Jews are heard together, without being identified as such, on All Things Considered, to present the news of the day to the nation, and also confesses in his own life to helping Jewish friends to get jobs and get ahead, while his WASP wife responds that she would do the opposite, having had that trait beaten out of her. "Journalism" in support of a religious, political or ethnic group is just propaganda. It seems to me that the way forward will see a similar beating out of racist and ethno- or religio-centric discrimination from among powerful American Jews in government, finance, and media. Anti-Semitism, and unfounded accusations of Anti-Semitism, will rise in this process. What is needed is a way forward including a language and narrative of American discernment to sort out that which is Anti-Semitic from that which is legitimate objection to the inappropriate exercise of power. And from the general American perspective, not only the perspectives of Jews who are unhappy with the Likud Party and its lobby, versus the Foxmans and Dershowitzes who draw their ire.
Doppler, this brings up yet another wrinkle in the game: the USA is founded to some extent though not by any means totally on the 'separation of church and state', and this can lead some secularised Jews to imagine that if the whole society is secularised, everybody will be on a level playing field: "OK, we're secular Jews, and we may be clannish, but you guys are secular christians and you're clannish too, plus, there's more of you." This is bullshit. You cannot impose atheism on a society, just for your own lazy convenience as an opportunistic social group, any more than you can impose it on your own children, as a lazy opportunist parent. MANY PEOPLE ARE RELIGIOUS BY NATURE, and their group solidarity flows from this fact. If you seek to retain group solidarity while dumping religion, you become an ethnic mafia.
Universalism is what is currently being promoted by Global elites in order to further the goals of transnational corporate capitalism and it's twin evil, Leftist multiculturalism. This is behind efforts such as NAFTA, GATT, WTO, European Union, etc. to destroy ethnic, national, and racial particularism all across the world. Much of the Left is hooked into this genocide campaign by rhetoric employing the concepts of Democracy and Human Rights, and end to "hate," war, etc. The Multicultural Left are the useful idiots of the Corporate Globalists. Mass Third World Immigration is another weapon utilized for both the destruction of traditional nations, peoples, and cultures, and to ensure that the Corporate Plutocrats are ensured a never-ending supply of compliant cheap labor. While in total agreement with Weiss on the negative effects the Israeli-Zionist Lobby in the U.S. has on Domestic and Foreign Policy matters, his call to destroy the distinct ethno-cultural identity of the Jewish People is ultimately as genocidal and totalitarian in nature, as current the current Israeli policies he condemns being usede in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
to onlooker: i guess mirroring statements with the opposite is perfectly appropriate to the name "onlooker". to colin murray: the ability of the jewish people to survive without a state is not the question here. the question is the consistency of the author, mister weiss. in a previous post he favors the disappearance of the jewish people. (maybe not for anything intrinsically wrong with them, but in order to do away with social networks.) and now he wants fellow "bad jews" to come out and speak up in support of doing away with israel. (mister weiss's partner mister horowitz has made this clear in his two state or one state essay.)
RE: "…So I guess I'm not really an assimilationist." MY COMMENT: Oh, no. Come back, Shane…uh…er…I mean Phil. Please, come back!
RE: "Time to reclaim your Jewish identity…" FROM THE "JERUSALEM POST" : " The First Word: A day in Jerusalem" – By YEHUDAH MIRSKY, 05/07/09 (EXCERPT) "…When I finally got home, at about 2:30 in the morning, my wife was, luckily for me, awake. I told her something that I had been thinking and scared to say for a long while: that the Jerusalem of my dreams, the Jerusalem where heaven and earth kiss, the Jerusalem of my father's childhood, is finally dead." ENTIRE COLUMN – http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=123971... MY COMMENT: "LAST year in Jerusalem."
Being a jew is traditionally a matter of mom's blood line. Very similar to the Nazi race laws, which were actually copied from the Jews. Yeah, yeah, I know, a goy can covert if he or she can jump through all the hoops,but I'm talking the practical matter, not a tiny handful of goy fanatics who hate their own kind. Look at Phil. The tribe is very different from the American concept of a full American citizen. Don't look to the jews, look more to the Roman concept of citizenship if you want to get away from tribalism. Also, check out the Australian Pov.
What American mixed jew-goy couple, married by secular municipal clerk (likely a goy due to the low pay), gives a crap about Jewish service from education to burial plot? This question does not mean that I overlook what Phil has described as a tribe, nor does it mean that Phil's wife has a clue how she is less tribal than Phil, and therefore less any part of the future of the human race. Phil' s wife is doomed to extinction. Phil will live on. Pretty simple.
People who say "You are not a Jew" have reasons for doing so which has nothing to do with who you are. Ethnicity is complex. The various aspects of ethnicity are cultural elements; religion is but one. One of the greatest threats modern society holds for religious authority is the reality that a declaration of anathema no longer results in the loss of all ties to social life. One of the greatest benefits of modern society is the individual's ability to challenge received wisdom, and to adapt cultural traditions which otherwise would become irrelevant. The depersonalized image of a "Jew" as a member of a monolithic bloc, one who does not vary from a prescribed mold in opinions, beliefs and values, is a weapon of decreasing potency. Allowing others to define one's self gives them power which is illusionary. By reclaiming your heritage, Phil, you reclaim a personal power to remake the traditions which others would use to exclude you. Without people who say, "I am a Jew and I do not support an ethno-theocratic state that privileges Jews above all others," the struggle for human rights in Israel/Palestine, and throughout the world, would be far more difficult. May "anti-zionist" Jews at the next AIPAC convention be an immovable force! May next year (and this) see in Jerusalem the enlargement of coalitions of Jews and non-Jews, standing up for human rights.
a jew who does not support the occupation = a self-hating jew a non-jew who does not support the occupation = an antisemite a jew or a non-jew who supports the occuaption = a good guy
I would call it "pseudo-leftist". What has happened (and this started with the Frankfurt School, which was imported into the US by the CIA), is a bourgeois form of cultural pseudo-leftism, with all the cultural 'leftist values' but none of the core political ones — centrally the abolition of capitalism. Good examples are pseudo-left sex politics, aggressive secularism, and bourgeois multi-racism. All of this is advantageous to bourgeois and petit bourgeois persons of Jewish descent who want to be 'secular Jews' (i.e. racist elitists) — especially if they do not support zionism.
One of the greatest threats modern society holds for religious authority is the reality that a declaration of anathema no longer results in the loss of all ties to social life. Precisely why the strongest opponents to secular Zionism at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th were religious Jews.
Rowan, I totally disagree. Phil is on record saying that: A. This is about injustice done to Palestinians and B. It cannot be stopped without non-Jews continuing sitting on their hands.
What do think Phil, that you've discovered something new? The majority of Jews have always been, if not outright anti-Zionist, at least cool to Zionism. On the religious side, the two extremes were traditionally against Zionism: The ultra-Orthodox because it threatened their absolute authority in the shtetl and the Reform movement, because it threatened their efforts to assimilate, primarily in Germany and in the United States. From the cultural side there were the Bundists, who saw all nationalism, but particularly Jewish nationalism, as the enemy of socialism. The problem is that you want to have it both ways. You want to be Jewish, but without religion and without nationalism. At the same time, you want a smattering of "ethnicity". So like Mooser and other Bundist remnants, you throw in some Yiddish phrases that you don't really understand, think that Fiddler of the Roof is Jewish culture and eat lox and bagels on Sunday morning. If you're happy with that , more power to you and stop feeling guilty.
Shafiq, in answer to your question: The idea of a good Jew/bad Jew is solely Phil's take. Being a Jew is an ethnic designation, which includes religion, but a lot of other things as well, including language, common history and a shared view of the past.
Being a jew is traditionally a matter of mom's blood line. Very similar to the Nazi race laws, which were actually copied from the Jews. Sorry "native", but you are wrong here. The religious (halakhic) definition of a Jew is through the mother's blood line. The Nazis did not copy this. Their definition was that the person had to be one-quarter Jewish (i.e. have a single Jewish grandparent on either side) to still have enough Jewish blood to pose a threat to Aryan purity.
Yes. Might as well try to hold back the tides of the sea.
No Rowan. First of all, if you get a non-Orthodox rabbi to convert you, then he (or she) can marry you. Increasingly, there are also Reform rabbis willing to marry mixed couples where the non-Jewish member does not convert. Don't Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox have the same limitations on intermarriage? Muslims make it damn easy to convert. A man just needs to state the shahadda before an imam or qadi. And a woman simply needs to marry a Muslim man. However, they get you on the other side – when you try to leave, because they've got severe penalties for apostasy and heresy.
I translate Phil's 'bad Jew' to be an interpretation of how it feels to experience the thundering denunciation, "You are not a Jew." I've read that addressed to him numerous times. The same people also say, "I am a Jew." The most usual reason for Phil being told he is not a Jew is because he doesn't support Israel. Do you include a requirement for loyalty to Israel in your understanding of what it means to be a Jew? I know from comments at various news outlets that many Israelis do.
Oh, quite. As well to try to hold back the tides.
Jes49: "Being a jew is traditionally a matter of mom's blood line. Very similar to the Nazi race laws, which were actually copied from the Jews. Sorry "native", but you are wrong here. The religious (halakhic) definition of a Jew is through the mother's blood line. The Nazis did not copy this. Their definition was that the person had to be one-quarter Jewish (i.e. have a single Jewish grandparent on either side) to still have enough Jewish blood to pose a threat to Aryan purity. " A slightly different perspective from Ernie Halfdram, commenting at The Hasbara Buster, http://thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com/2009/05/can-... "The 1970 amendment of Law of return defines ‘Jew’ in halakhic terms – ‘a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism’, muddying the waters further. It also extends ‘The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952’, to’ a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion’ – roughly the same population defined as Jews under the Nazis’ 1935 Nuremburg Laws." My view: Such laws are of a piece. The idea of Israel was born, so to speak, in pre-World War Middle Europe, JES49, wasn't it? As a political movement, it bares many hall marks of the Prussian mind-set, not surprising given the lineage of ideas encorporated, ideas which are being used for current day policies in Israel. The Empire ended, a demise attended by revolution and world war. Israel rose amid the ashes of colonialism to become, eventually, a vanguard for the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. Which brings us to the present, and Israel's war on terrorism.
The idea of Israel was born, so to speak, in pre-World War Middle Europe, JES49, wasn't it? As a political movement, it bares many hall marks of the Prussian mind-set, not surprising given the lineage of ideas encorporated, ideas which are being used for current day policies in Israel No Margaret. The idea of Israel was born in pre-War Europe (actually mostly in Eastern Europe), but the specific Law of Return was implemented after the establishment of the State of Israel. Further, you confuse what you call the "Prussian mind-set" with one of the main goals of Zionism – to provide a refuge to Jews in the face of danger. As such, the argument was made that the definition of a Jew, from a national perspective should not be limited to the halakhic definition. Those in the Knesset who drafted the Law of Return were well aware that the Nazis had a much broader definition of "who is a Jew", and they meant this definition as a response.
JES49: "Those in the Knesset who drafted the Law of Return were well aware that the Nazis had a much broader definition of "who is a Jew", and they meant this definition as a response. " My view: Such laws are of a piece. There is strong support to be found for the view that political forces wishing to advance the cause of Israel's development were so focused on funneling people to Israel rather than elsewhere that a result was the death of many Middle European Jews for whom immigration to Israel was not available. (See: the transfer agreement. The population preferred for Israel was young, healthy and strong. The breeding of good eugenic characteristics was considered goal worthy at the time.) Israel, as a nation/state, incorporates the ideas and attitudes of the old Empire, re-propositioned as a spread of ersatz democracy, sans common law, while proclaiming a 21st century version of Manifest Destiny, as in the neo-conservative real-politiks of BushCO. It is a doctrine opposed to the values and principles of the U.S., but, especially in the instance of Israel, has been sold to the U.S. as representing those values. That is fraudulent; equally fraudulent, I would argue, is the "war on terror".
http://www.stockmaven.com/transfer_A.htm
No she's not wrong. Early Zionism included concepts of race, eugenics, lebensraum, nationalism, socialism, etc; these Zionist concepts evolved in tandem with German ideas, Das Volk; the Aryan "new man" and the Jewish "new man, the latter theoretically derived from the Ashkenazi element of the Jewish people, young, strong, built to pioneer collectively in Palestine. BTW Julius Streicher's defense at Nuremberg consisted of Talmud passages. Israel's law of return, which defines a myriad of civil rights in that land as well as who is entitled to immigrate there with full rights, is a carbon copy of the Nazi race laws.
No. Margaret is not wrong. Zionist notions arose in Germany in tandem with Nazi notions, among them eugenics, race theory, lebensraum, the myth of the Volk, of ancient myth, of the "new man", on the one hand, The Aryan, on the other hand, The True Jew, the Ashkenazi uber-group of the Jewish people. Julius Streicher's defense at Nuremberg rested on the Talmud. The Israeli law of return allocates civil rights and duties throughout Israeli society, and so is not merely the race-ethnic criteria for who may immigrate to Israel– with top shelf rights and privileges. It is a facsimilie of the Nazi race laws except who benefits is reversed.
Phil, you would have made a good 19th century Reform Jew. It would be a wonderful thing if more Jews discovered that assimilation is not all or nothing proposition. One can be at home in the US, enjoy the Christmas observances of one's neighbors, and still be glad to be Jewish.
Wow, Rowan. I didn't realize we were on the same page on so many issues. We seem to be abolishing capitalism, though. I'm not sure what it's being replaced with, but there's nothing capitalistic about government insuring well-connected financial interests and then subsidizing their incompetence with public debt.
Brilliant summary, Rowan. “No sooner does a man turn aside from Torah than he embraces idolatry.” – Rashi
Let me see. How can I respond to this? Bullshit! The British White Paper of 1939 limited immigration to Palestine to 10,000 Jews per year over a five year period, plus an additional 5,000 Jewish refugees on a contingency basis. The Jewish population of Europe at the time was approximately 10 million. You can do the math: 10,000,000 minus 75,000 over five years. So let's take a look at your arguments. First, that it was the Zionists wishing to advance the cause of Israel who funnelled Jews into Palestine rather than Israel that resulted in the deaths of many "Middle European" Jews. This is simply preposterous. It was the 1939 White Paper that prevented immigration of more Jews, and this came in response to Arab pressure on the British.
You assume that there was somewhere else for these "Middle European" Jews to go. But for most, there simply wasn't, and this was particularly true for the Eastern European Jews (nearly 5 million) who nobody was willing to take in. They didn't parish because of Zionist machinations. They died because of a combination of Palestine effectively being closed to them while the world – and primarily the United States – turned a blind eye and a deaf ear on their pleas. Finally, you make the rather insulting charge that it was actually eugenics that was at play here with a strong preference for the young, healthy and strong. If Zionists could bring in a few thousand illegal immigrants over and above the quotas set by the White Paper, then naturally there would be a preference for the young and fit. But this does not change the fact that the British had virtually closed Palestine as a place of refuge for the Jews.
(Continued) "Israel, as a nation/state, incorporates the ideas and attitudes of the old Empire, re-propositioned as a spread of ersatz democracy, sans common law, while proclaiming a 21st century version of Manifest Destiny, as in the neo-conservative real-politiks of BushCO. "It is a doctrine opposed to the values and principles of the U.S., but in the instance of Israel has been sold to the U.S. as representing those values. That is fraudulent; equally fraudulent, I would argue, is the 'war on terror'." What a load of crap! What is the "old Empire"? And how does "common law" fit into things. (BTW, Israeli law is based on British Common Law, but I fear that will go over your head.) The next one is a masterpiece of chaining together a series of meaningless phrases into something that appears to convey deep meaning. Congratulations. And what do you mean by opposing the values of the U.S. but having been sold to the U.S. as representing those values? Precisely what values are we talking about here? Why aren't they U.S. values? How old are you?
So, yonahred, why don't you address the face in the mirror? Onlooker made a valid point, you failed to address it. Further, Weiss merely stated what is known by many who deal with jews; they heavily favor their own and feel no guilt about it at all, always pointing to historical anti-semitism–to screw over meritorious goys who never even dreamed of hurting a jew because he or she was born jewish.
Well, perhaps it's somewhere in between. Phil merely admits he's a tribal fellow to the core–say, in contrast to his shiksa wife. He just objects to Zionist logic and actions over the many years, and realizes both Jews and Gentiles are needed to curtail it–one step further, he realizes that the charge of "anti-semitism" means for any change to occur, Jews saying they are Jews, must speak out. It's true. Nothing could match this acknowledgement that Gentiles have themselves to blame, both for Auschwitz and for the suffering of every Palestinian child.
So why is there an insistence on marrying within the Jewry? I expect such attitudes from my grandparents but not from younger generations.
Have you read what you've posted here? Do you understand what Black's argument is? It is certainly not what you have argued.
I was afraid of this: Phil went to AIPAC, and got a contact ziocaine high. Let's hope a Palestinian doesn't steal his parking space. Phil, that's dangerous stuff you're fooling with. You are just gonna have to haul up your slacks and just say "No" to ziocaine. But I don't think you can, frankly. Funny, isn't it, that "Christian culture" in the US is so phony, and Jewish culture so pure and authentic. I wonder why it happened that way?
Rowan – Does atheism mean more to you than a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods (answer.com's definition)? To be free of such belief also seems natural to people. There are alternatives aside from those you proffer. The separation of church from state authority allows freedom of religious choice; without it, based on historical record, one or another religion would predominate, to the detriment of others and to the detriment of those who live without religious belief.
Yes.
Wow. Whilst I agree with some of the sentiments here, I don't understand your insistence on ethno-cultural purity. Nations, cultures and traditions are all artificial and (mostly) mean nothing. Where does the US fit into these ethno-cultural identities? Don't traditions and cultures die all the time?
What values do you consider to be held by both the US and Israel?
I do dispute that the reason "But for most, there simply wasn't" was happenstance or the result of antisemitism. There is a fair amount of contemporary news online regarding international boycott activity against Germany, beginning in the 1920's. People in the US supported emigration to Israel, rather than supporting changes in US immigration policy, because they were encouraged to do so by their local US Chambers of Commerce in the US, in which Christian and Jewish Zionists were active. The "British" of whom you speak also included influential Christian and Jewish Zionists, who were interested and active in forming protectorate policy.
Let's see Margaret. The value of individual freedoms, as expressed in the US Constitution and Israel's Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty and the Freedom of Occupation. The rule of law, as represented by the judiciary, and especially the Israeli High Court of Justice and US Supreme Court. In short, Israel and the US share a lot of values, as do other Western democracies. I don't see where these values are common to most other Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, or to the Islamist movements Hamas and Hizballah. However, please feel free to update me on exactly which values they share with the US. And now, if you can please explain to me what all your rambling above means, I'd really appreciate that.
LOL@Citizen. What would we do without you C? Trying to throw sand in our eyes? I live here. You've probably never been. Pathetic.
When I was growing up in the U.S. I never did enjoy Christmas or other observances of my neighbors. Since moving to Israel over 25 years ago, I thoroughly enjoy going back to the U.S. at Christmas time.
How can you even say that when the very link that you provided from Edwin Black is evidence against? Of course it was the result of anti-Semitism. If the U.S. didn't want to receive 500,000 German Jews between 1933 and 1939, what makes you think that they would want to allow 8 million Eastern European Jews to enter! Which "[p]eople in the US supported emigration to Israel [sic]"? And what makes you think that Christian Zionists (forget about Jewish Zionists even being asked to join in great numbers) were active in Chambers of Commerce? Black goes into great detail about Henry Ford's anti-Semitism. And then there was Father Caughlin, not to mention Charles Lindbergh who, in Des Moines delivered a speech on September 11, 1941 in which he said that those "pressing this country toward war [are] the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt Administration".
(Continued) The fact is, Margaret, that there was no great hope for an international boycott, when even Joseph Kennedy and Prescott Bush were doing business with the Nazis. And despite all the prejudice you may hold about Jews and commerce, we just didn't have enough clout in the 1930s to wage an effective boycott alone.
JES49, you're forgetting about the Great Depression. There was no interest in the US in bringing in huge numbers of refugees when there was no work available for them. Lindbergh was telling the truth, by the way.
I'm not forgetting about the Great Depression, David. It only highlights the importance of a Jewish homeland and the criminality of the British in limiting immigration. And it certainly doesn't lend credence to Margaret's argument that the Zionists were practicing eugenics and more interested in bulking up the Jewish population of Palestine than of saving lives. I'd appreciate it if you could share with us why you think that Lindbergh was telling the truth. It seems to me that Germany declared war on the United States immediately after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and not the other way around!
Lindbergh and the America First movement opposed entering the war *before* Pearl Harbor. Both Roosevelt and Churchill were very eager for the US to enter the war, Roosevelt and pushed the bounds of neutrality by supplying the British with armaments through the Lend Lease progam. The organized Jewish community and Jewish-owned media outlets also were also visibly (and understandably) in favor of joining the British against Germany. Lindbergh and America First advocated neutrality. After Pearl Harbor, all opposition to entering the war pretty much disappeared, and Lindbergh served in the war effort.
i have never used the term "goys" in my life. in hebrew the plural for "goy" is "goyim". but i don't wish to teach you hebrew, but rather reading comprehension of english. mister weiss's article is not about nonJews needing Jews who favor assimilation to oppose israel in order to relieve the nonJews of the unfair slings and arrows of Israel supporters, it is about the need for assimilationist Jews to assert their voices because despite their desire for the Jews to disappear, they still have humanist values that he considers the basic core of the ritualistic/ethnocentric Judaism that he wishes to see disappear.
Gee David, I really didn't know all that (please note the irony). Sure, Lindbergh was technically "telling the truth", but was he correct? And what about Henry Ford and Father Caughlin. What you fail to understand is that there was an entirely different climate in the United States, one in which anti-Semitism – among other racist tenets – was perfectly normal and acceptible. And the AJC and "Jewish-owned media outlets" (viz. the Pulitzer, Ochs and Sulzberger families) were hardly Zionists, as Margaret would have us believe.
I've never really bought Phil's talk of assimilation or universalism, and this post pretty much confirms my suspicions. Universalism sounds great, and I wish such ideas could work. But I've never seen anything of the sort work in real life, and I surely don't but such talk coming out of the Jewish community. I guess it truly is every group for itself at this point.
Religious by nature, sound like scientific determinism. Soon you will come a religious genetic code. The rest of your argument appears valid. Humankind needs rituals, compulsion, myth and taboos for other reasons that are not strictly "religious".
Actually, Lindbergh was widely reviled for his speech, and his family was shunned by many of their friends. Lindbergh knew very well he was going to be seriously attacked, but believed that it was his obligation to challenge the eagerness of the Jewish community to enter a war he saw as against his country's interests at the time. If any group wishes to organize to lobby or wields political or media power, then it is open to criticism. I wouldn't lump Coughlin or Ford in with Lindbergh. I don't understand why so many Jews assume that anyone who opposes a Jewish organization or individual in the poltical realm must be doing it out of racism. Non-Jews have poltical interests and agendas of their own, and sometimes they will conflict with what organized Jewish agendas and interests. That's simply politics.
Jews will never be assimilated until they can meet a stranger and not know, care, or wonder if he is Jewish or not.
Given that, at the time it was given, I can imagine why Lindbergh was widely reviled, particularly after December 7,1941! I don't know why you wouldn't at least pair Lindbergh with Ford. Was it because Lindbergh was just more patrician. Both had been to Germany and pretty much knew what was going on there. Remember, Lindbergh's Des Moines speech was delivered in September 1941 – after the Nuremberg Laws, and Kristalnacht; and the invasions of Poland and the Soviet Union and the deportation of the vast majority of Germany's 500,000 Jews either to the "East" or to concentration camps in Germany. As to why it is that "so many Jews assume that anyone who opposes a Jewish organiztion… must be doing it out of racism". Well, I don't see why any pro-Zionist political stances taken by American Jews are seen as a sign of dual loyalty. Perhaps you can fill me in on this. (And for what it's worth, I don't think that rational critics of Mearsheimer and Walt have charged them with anti-Semitism. They have accused them of faulty scholarship.)
"Nations, Cultures, and Traditions are all artificial"? Leftist Nihilistic Nonsense. The U.S. has a core identity as a Western and predominantly European-descended nation, at least up until 1965. Then the U.S. Business and Political Ruling Elites decided to open up the floodgates to Mass Third World Immigration. Universalism is and multiculturalism is what is meaningless and artificial, my friend.
I certainly wouldn't consider myself a lefty, but never mind. You talk of Europe as a homogeneous group but it's nothing of the sort. Eastern Europeans have little if nothing in common with Western Europeans. Many people that have similar views to yours oppose migration from Latin America, but isn't Latin America predominantly European-descended? What happened to the US being a melting pot for all? In Europe, the only way to post-war recovery was to open up the doors to immigrants. Multiculturalism is definitely meaningless, but it's as meaningless (and pointless) as maintaining ethno-cultural purity.
"We, being a Zionist Organization, should concern ourselves with the constructive solution of the German question through the transfer of the Jewish youth from Germany to Palestine, rather than with the question of equal rights of Jews in Germany." July 3, 1935 Chaim Weizmann, World Zionist Organization quoted by Lenni Brenner pg 80 Zioinism in the Age of the Dictators from Chaim Weizmann, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann, Letters, vol. XVI, pg 464.
The Transfer Agreement and the Boycott Movement: A Jewish Dilemma on the Eve of the Holocaust Yf'aat Weiss Professor, Dept. of History of the Jewish People – The Hebrew University of Jerusalem , Israel http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Wo... In the summer of 1933, the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the German Zionist Federation, and the German Economics Ministry drafted a plan meant to allow German Jews emigrating to Palestine to retain some of the value of their property in Germany by purchasing German goods for the Yishuv, which would redeem them in Palestine local currency. This scheme, known as the Transfer Agreement or Ha’avarah, met the needs of all interested parties: German Jews, the German economy, and the Mandatory Government and the Yishuv in Palestine. Many Jews were critical of the Agreement from the very outset. The negotiations between the Zionist movement and official representatives of Nazi Germany evoked much wrath. In retrospect, and in view of what we know about the annihilation of European Jewry, these relations between the Zionist movement and Nazi Germany seem especially problematic. The Jewish movement to boycott German goods was foremost among the efforts of international Jewish organizations on behalf of German Jewry, and Jewish communities worldwide, especially in the United States, France, and Great Britain, took part in it. Jews had mixed feelings about these initiatives, lest they anger the German authorities and cause their situation to worsen. The boycott movement was widely perceived as a threat to the interests of German Jews, for it might cause the Germans to toughen their own anti-Jewish economic boycott. It was also considered a potential impediment to the Transfer Agreement, an arrangement that served the basic interests of German Jewry with respect to economics and emigration.5 The Transfer Agreement and the boycott movement reflected different and even clashing attitudes toward the appropriate ways to cope with the new realities in post-1933 Germany. Therefore, the controversy among their advocates is a matter of fundamental significance. These were not merely different tactics in pursuit of the same goal but the products of different overall perspectives on the nature of National Socialism, antisemitism in general, and Jewish life in the Diaspora. However, although the Transfer Agreement was predicated on the wish to help German Jews escape, the temporary quiescence and stabilization that ensued in Germany several months later brought the economic considerations of the Yishuv to the fore, and the Yishuv leadership was increasingly preoccupied with the economic advantages that would accrue to this community if the basis of Jewish life in Germany were eliminated. As German Jewry was being destroyed, the Zionist movement and the Yishuv leadership were engaged in an internal political power struggle between the Labor movement and the Revisionists. This struggle embraced all spheres of Jewish life in Palestine and rested on political power struggles within the Diaspora communities, which gave the central Zionist institutions their contours. Discussion of the two alternatives – boycott or transfer – became part of the struggle between the Revisionists and the Labor movement and clearly mirrored the fundamental attitudes of these two leading Zionist movements toward the substance of Zionist politics.
http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-nazi-boycotts The Jewish War Veterans established a boycott in the United States on March 19, 1933. In May the American League for the Defense of Jewish Rights was founded by the Yiddish journalist, Abraham Coralnik. Six months later Samuel Untermyer took charge of the organization; he soon became a leading figure in the boycott movement and was active until the United States entered the war in 1941. Untermyer changed his organization's name to the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League to Champion Human Rights to emphasize that the cause did not only apply to Jews. Untermyer and Coralnik also organized the World Jewish Economic Conference in Amsterdam in an unsuccessful effort to create an international Jewish boycott movement. The American Jewish Congress (AJC) declared a boycott in August 1933. In 1935 the AJC set up a joint boycott council with the Jewish labor committee; it developed into one of two major boycott organizations in the US Nevertheless, Untermyer's league and the joint council did not succeed in joining forces. Despite the fact that much support was expressed for the boycotts, many important organizations and leaders (both Jewish and among the American public) did not back the movement. Some, such as the American Jewish Committee and B'nai B'rith in the US, the Board of Deputies of British Jews in England, and the Alliance Israelite Universelle in France, even opposed the movement. In Britain, a group of board members under the leadership of Lord Melchett (Henry Mond) broke away to form their own movement. However, the group soon split up. The Jewish Agency could not support the boycott movement because of the Transfer Agreement it had made with Germany, allowing them to help German Jews leave for Palestine, but forfeiting their right to protest Germany's activities.
From the B'Tselem 2008 Annual Report: http://www.btselem.org/english/press_releases/200... In 2008, Israel detained without trial 548 Palestinians, of which 23 have been held without charge or trial for at least two and a half years. The total number of Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli custody at the end of December was 7,904. Through12.26.08 (the beginning of Operation Cast Lead), Israel security forces had killed at least 175 Palestinians who did not take part in hostilities. The Israeli army restricts Palestinian movement on 430 kilometers of roads, on which Israelis are allowed free use; Palesintian travel is completely prohibited on 137 kilometers of roads. B’Tselem’s annual report surveys many additional violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories during 2008. Among them: house demolition, the continued construction of the separation barrier within the West Bank, settlement expansion and the lack of law enforcement on violent settlers. The report also addresses the systematic lack of accountability for harm caused to Palestinians by Israeli security forces.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+status+of+Pales... The expelled inhabitants of Ikrit and Biram, two Galilean villages, resorted to the courts to ask for their rights to return to their villages. Their land had been distributed to kibbutzim (Jewish agricultural collectives).In 1951, the Ikrit villagers obtained permission to return from the Supreme Court of Israel .However, the Minister of Defense refused to allow them to return and the IDF demolished Irkit. In 1953, the Biram villagers took a similar action and sued the government. While their case was in process, the IDF sent airplanes and bombed Biram's buildings, leveling the entire village and the Kibutzim kept the land for themselves. The Israeli government closed the Ikrit and Biram cases under the 1949 Emergency Regulation Law. When asked about these cases, the Prime Minister of Israel (Ben-Gurion) explained that "these are not the only villagers living a long way from their home villages. We do not want to create a precedent for the repatriation of refugees." These villagers continued unsuccessfully to petition the government. (34) Expelled residents of other villages did the same without success.
Shawan Jabarin, executive director of the Palestinian organization al-Haq, is banned from leaving the West Bank and will not be able to accept the (Dutch "Geuzen Resistence") award on behalf of his organization. Since 2006, the Israeli authorities have not permitted him to go abroad. Four petitions that Jabarin filed in the High Court of Justice against the prohibition were denied, based on privileged material provided to the court, on the grounds that he is active in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine organization. Jabarin has never been tried on any charge or given an opportunity to confront the allegations against him in a legal proceeding under due process. The prize, first given in 1987, is awarded to persons or institutions dedicated to advancing democracy and opposing tyranny, discrimination, and racism.
A good description of how, in practice, democracy in Israel differs from democracy in the U.S. is presented by "The Status of Palestinians in Israel: 1948-Oslo," http://www.hamoked.org/ COPYRIGHT 2006 Association of Arab-American University Graduates Yet another source is HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual "founded by Dr. Lotte Salzberger, is an Israeli human rights organization which aims to assist Palestinians residents of the Occupied Territories whose rights are violated due to Israel’s policy. HaMoked works for the enforcement of the standards and values of international human rights and humanitarian law. In 2000 they received $150,000 from the Ford Foundation "For human rights advocacy and legal action to promote the rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.". (http://www.hamoked.org/ http://www.hamoked.org/ "This site contains information relating to these human rights violations. It gives the texts of Israeli laws and regulations, including those of the Military Government; international conventions; petitions to the Israeli High Court of Justice; claims for compensation for damages; decisions by Israeli and other courts; and other official documents and reports."
Israel has no jury system. In the administered territories, security cases are tried in military courts; verdicts may not be appealed, and the rules of habeas corpus do not apply. "In 1978, Israel's High Court of Justice upheld the right of a Jerusalem public corporation to reject the application of an East Jerusalem-born Muslim to rent an apartment in which he had been living, on land which had been owned by his father until it was expropriated by the Israeli government. In reaching its decision, based largely on the fact that the apartment is in a section of the Old City the government considers the "Jewish Quarter," the court ruling seemed to deviate sharply from the human rights provisions of the charter of the United Nations, to which the government of Israel has pledged adherence." (There was controversy over use of the media by the Plaintiff to publicise his case, which was considered by the court to amount to contempt of court.) "Nor was the court convinced by the heart of Mr. Burkaan's complaint that in setting up requirements which Jews but not Muslims could meet, the owners had established discriminatory requirements contrary to Israeli law. Instead, the court found that although the term "Israeli citizen includes non-Jews, whether Muslim, Druze or Christian Israelis," the restrictions of apartments to those citizens who served in the military is "reasonable in view of clear security considerations. " "Both security and political considerations explain and justify such discrimination."
A few exceprts regarding marriage in Israel http://usembassy-israel.org.il/consular/acs/marri... With the exception of consular marriages, a marriage between a Jew and non-Jew may not be performed in Israel. A widow whose husband died childless must have received "CHALITZA" (release) from her brother-in-law, if living, in order to receive a Certificate of Bachelorhood. (required to marry) Only the religious communities mentioned above (EASTERN ORTHODOX, ROMAN CATHOLICS, GREGORIAN ARMENIANS, ARMENIAN CATHOLICS, SYRIAN CATHOLICS, CHALDEAN UNIATES, GREEK CATHOLICS, MARONITES AND SYRIAN ORTHODOX)have de jure status in Israel. Other groups, including Protestant churches, have only de facto recognition; and in the absence of specific legislation on the subject, marriage between Protestants is arranged on ad hoc and individual basis. The minister who plans to perform the ceremony writes to the Ministry for Religious Affairs, setting forth the names of the persons to be married, their nationality, and their religious affiliation. He requests the Ministry's permission to perform the marriage and to issue a marriage certificate. Protestants planning to be married in Israel should allow from two to four weeks to complete the formalities required before the marriage can take place. There is no civil divorce in Israel.
And how precisely does this B'tselem report clarify your rantings above?
Yes Margaret. However, what is generally left out of the story of Ikrit and Biram is the following bit: "Those committees recommended in 1995 and 1996 that an area of 1,200 dunam be allocated for the re-establishment of Biram and Ikrit as community settlements on the basis of long-term land leases. Family representatives rejected the proposals – another reason for the cabinet's refusal to allow the villagers to return. The government will also argue in its case to the High Court that most of the families have already reached compensation agreements, in the form of land or money, with the government." http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?...
Personal status, including marriage, is left within the domain of the religious authorities. The Israeli Government recognizes marriages performed outside of Israel (e.g. civil marriages). Other couples opt for an agreement prepared by a lawyer. What is misleading here, however, is that the law does not forbid the marriage of a Jew and a non-Jew, and the chaliza is only required to be married by the rabbinate. Interestingly, there is a strong move for civil unions and divorce. The main proponent is the devil incarnate – Avigdor Lieberman.
I'm not familiar with the particular case in question here, so I can't comment. I don't believe that a jury system is a prerequisite for a democratic justice system. Many Western democracies don't have jury systems. Security cases are tried by military courts in the administered territories because these are under military occupation. That's the way it is under international law. And while the military courts don't have an appellate process, the defendants are free to take their cases to the Israeli courts for appeals. The only cases where there is no habeas corpus are those of administrative detention (which BTW, has been used to incarcerate Jewish settlers), a holdover from the British Mandatory Government. Personally, I think that we should do away with this anachronism.
Really Margaret, do you read what you post? Take a look at this: "The boycott movement was widely perceived as a threat to the interests of German Jews, for it might cause the Germans to toughen their own anti-Jewish economic boycott. It was also considered a potential impediment to the Transfer Agreement, an arrangement that served the basic interests of German Jewry with respect to economics and emigration."
Tell me more. Most of the families?
The B'tselem reports a range of activities which reflect a society which survives in a constant state of warfare. The differences between the Israeli cultural acceptance of such activities, which are considered insufficiently punitive by many of those who comment on other sites, and cultural acceptance within the US of such activities are different. That difference reflects different values. The policies of our government were being aligned more closely with those of Israel's, with great activity expended to create acceptance on the part of the US population of an unending war against terror. However, the effort to create such acceptance failed, while the effort to reinstate a minimum value for human rights was more successful. Then we had an election. The values and principles at the base of the State of Israel are different than those of the US.
You left off the conclusion of what appears to be an editorial in Haaretz: " "Nonetheless, the evacuees of Ikrit and Biram, their children and their grandchildren have become a symbol of an injustice that requires rectification with wisdom and conciliation. The cabinet's position, based as it is on legalistic and formulaic positions, ignores the national and civic significance of symbolism in this complicated and difficult era, and by doing so, casts a shadow of moral and political lacunae on its members." Considering that the article states they were offered 1200 units of land to replace 2800 units, it's not surprising the representatives rejected the proposal, is it?
Not a Lefty? Your rhetoric certainly sounds like it, and who claimed that "Europe was ever homogenous." Do Eastern and Western Europeans differ in many ways? Of course. Although, they certainly have far more in common than with Bantus or Koreans. Mass Third World Immigration has been nothing but disastrous for Europe. Europe doesn't "need Immigrants" any more than the U.S. or Australia does. Multinational Corporations love it because they want endless supplies of cheap labor. The Multicultural left loves immigration because they harbor a deep hatred for The West and White people in general, and pine for their destruction. Some Latin Americans are European descended, but most are Mestizo. Most people prefer ethno-cultural homogeneity. This is reflected in the behavior of average people throughout the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Australia, and in spite of incessant propaganda from Government, Media, Schools, and Churches, to forcibly impose multiculturalism on everyone, by force if necessary! Multi-cultural and multi-societies are inherently unstable and unworkable. This has been the case from Sri Lanka to Lebanon to Yugoslavia. A true nation is ethnically and culturally homogenous. As far as Israel-Palestine is concerned, I think the two-state solution is ultimately the only realistic one. There will never be a "secular, democratic, multicultural" Palestine where all will live in peace and harmony. This is as realistic as the prospect of cats barking or cotton candy growing on trees! If all U.S. assistance were cut off to Israel and the influence of AIPAC and organized Zionism within American academic and media circles curtailed, the Israeli regime would quickly change its tune, virtually overnight.
No, Magaret? Don't you mean "yes, but…"
JES49 – Please indicate what you consider notable about what you quoted.
Margaret, your argument is that the Zionists' primary interest was bringing young, able-bodied German Jews to Palestine in some sort of scheme based on "eugenics". My argument is that the primary purpose of the "transfer agreement" was to save German Jewish lives, and that this was done with the realistic understanding that the boycott did not have a chance of suceeding – which it didn't. Further, by developing the absorptive power of the land (a criterion that the British Mandatory used, based on Arab complaints, for determining Jewish immigration), the young could ensure that their parents would have a refuge. Just as one example, if the threat of Jewish "power" could not force the Roosevelt Administration to accept the 620 passengers on the St. Louis, what makes you think that a Jewish boycott of German goods could have brought the Nazi regime to its knees?
I agree 100% with the conclusion. But what does that have to do with your argument?
The thing is, where would I fit in? My great-grandparents migrated from India to Africa, where my grandparents and parents were born. Then my parents migrated to Britain, where I was born. I don't consider myself Indian and if I went there, people would consider me to be a foreigner. According to you, I don't fit in here in Britain, so where do I fit in?
No. That isn't my argument: Zionism's primary interest was in building a state; eugenics was a theory that influenced general thought at the time, which seems to be reflected in the way the target group desired for emigration was categorized. Which was the point of saying that the idea of Israel was born in per-World War Europe, an era that included a lot of beliefs that no longer are current, as well as others still much at issue. Herzl's Zionism, the original plan, was based on a belief that Jews were inherently different from others, and could be happy only if there were a place just for Jews. (A belief that holds, also, the seed of the 'self-hatred' meme now used to demonize those who don't support Israel.) It came of a time and place when privilege was accorded monarchy by divine right, and extended outward into the greater society through privilege granted by the members of the ruling monarchy. As a modern state, it continues to represent those ideas. Your position that the boycott did not have a chance of succeeding is an opinion, and I hold a different one. I think it could have made a difference. I think that the choice to instead save a small number of individuals, and in doing so create a new State dedicated to privileging a specific group represented by those individuals, was less than beneficial to the interests of that group, the "Jews," and antithetical to the larger group to which they belonged, human beings.
The British Empire. The State of Israel acknowledges only a few of the rights substantiated by common law and limits the exercise of citizen rights to those who fit a definition of 'Jew' established by people who have a specific perspective of the Jewish religion. Their definition does not include all those who might consider themselves to be Jews. The US is based on the principles, inter alia, of liberty and justice for all, and of separation of church and state.
That the boycott movement was so perceived does not establish the validity of the perception.
Margaret, I think that you are trying to dig yourself out of the hole into which you've managed so well to place yourself. Your feeble attempt to connect Zionism through "eugenics" simply doesn't work, as it's a theory that Zionism never held. You need to read more Herzl to understand that he didn't think that Jews were inherently different. What he felt was that no matter how much they tried to assimilate the communities in which they lived would always hate them.
Again, Margaret, you spout nonsense. Only the personal status laws (marriage, divorce) are left to the religious authorities (not just Jewish). The remaining laws are applied equally to all Israelis, and we have a High Court of Justice that has done an exellent job of ensuring the universal application of all laws to guarantee – liberty and justice for all. I don't believe that Britain has a forma separation of church and state either.
JES49: Herzl says that the immediate cause of anti-Semitism is 'our' excessive production of medicore intellects; its remote cause is 'our' loss of the power of assimilation during the Middle Ages; 'our' national character is historically famous; 'we' are now, and shall henceforth remain, a historic group with unmistakable characteristics common to 'us' all. He appears to consider anti-Semitism to be caused by the character and behavior of Jews. "Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed, it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed. Its remote cause is our loss of the power of assimilation during the Middle Ages; its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards–that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction." (From "Causes of Anti-Semitism" The Jewish State) "I referred previously to our "assimilation". I do not for a moment wish to imply that I desire such an end. Our national character is too historically famous, and, in spite of every degradation, too fine to make its annihilation desirable. We might perhaps be able to merge ourselves entirely into surrounding races, if these were to leave us in peace for a period of two generations. But they will not [92]leave us in peace. For a little period they manage to tolerate us, and then their hostility breaks out again and again. The world is provoked somehow by our prosperity, because it has for many centuries been accustomed to consider us as the most contemptible among the poverty-stricken. In its ignorance and narrowness of heart, it fails to observe that prosperity weakens our Judaism and extinguishes our peculiarities. It is only pressure that forces us back to the parent stem; it is only hatred encompassing us that makes us strangers once more. Thus, whether we like it or not, we are now, and shall henceforth remain, a historic group with unmistakable characteristics common to us all." (From "Effects of Anti-Semitism," Ibid)