Shalom Rav at Jewschool reports that the Rabbinical Assembly, the religious authority of the Conservative movement, has asked Jewish congregations to sing the "Hatikvah," the Israeli national anthem, at the start of the Jewish new year tonight as a means of combating the Goldstone report.
From Rav, with his commentary below:
The Rabbinical Assembly distributed this letter today to its members, asking its rabbis to read the piece below in lieu of the Shofar service on Rosh Hashanah. (The shofar is traditionally not sounded when RH falls on Shabbat, as it does this year.)
Friends,
On this Rosh Hashanah our brothers and sisters in Israel face the threat of a nuclear Iran – a threat to Israel’s very existence.
Today, we Jews around the world also confront the anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment of the Goldstone report which blames Israel disproportionately for the tragic loss of human life incurred in Operation Cast Lead, which took place last winter in Gaza. This unbalanced United Nations sponsored report portends serious consequences for Israel and the Jewish people.
On this holy day, which is not only Rosh Hashanah, but also Shabbat, the Shofar is silent in the face of this spurious report, the world is far too silent.
Today the state of Israel needs us to be the kol shofar, the voice of the shofar!
We ask you to write to our governmental leaders and call upon them to condemn the Goldstone report and to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran.
While the shofar is silent today, all Conservative rabbis, cantors and congregations have been asked to sing Hatikvah at this moment in the service.
We rise in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Israel.
What troubles me most about this suggestion is how profoundly it flies in the face of the very meaning of the festival itself. On Rosh Hashanah, we affirm Malchuyot – God’s sovereignty over the universe. Rosh Hashanah is the only time of the year that Jews are commanded to bow all the way to the ground and pledge our allegiance to God and God alone. We acknowledge that our ultimate fealty lies with a Power beyond ourselves, beyond any mortal, any government, any earthly power.
Beyond the political arguments over such a statement, it strikes me as something approaching idolatry.
Mondo’s tipster, Alon, says:
As a convert who came through the Conservative movement, I’m appalled at this blatant mixture of politics, nationalism and religion. It was uncomfortable enough to have to sit through (I never recited along) the prayer for the State of Israel found in the Conservative Siddur, but this is truly astounding.
The comments section of Rav’s post includes the apocryphal statement that Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the US, sent out this request to the Rabbinical Assembly. Somehow I doubt this, but…
Why don’t they just get everyone to stand up, cover their ears, and yell “La, la, la, la, la, la, I CAN”T HEAR YOU!” It would have the same meaning.
wow, this is repenting? Zionism is killing Judaism.
No kidding. It starting to look like the biggest danger rational, progressive Jews have to face… are other Jews.
If this were a Palestinian organization calling for a Palestinian national anthem to be sung in American mosques, there would be Islamophobia coming out of people’s ears. What hypocrisy.
You’ll pardon my saying so, Chaos 4700, but what you Jews choose to do to one another concerns me less than what happens to the America I had hoped would be a happy home for my children and grandchildren.
PG,
Chaos4700′s remark about progressive Jews is spot on, and that may or may not be of interest to you. With all due respect to ME politics however, the hapiness of your children and grandchildren (and mine) has been compromised by those who have sanctified unlimited economic growth above all else.
Do you get that you have not succeeded at persuasion?
Do we read your words stating that you don’t find what others say persuasive? Yes – we do keep saying that, Richard.
Do you represent the universe of others? No, you don’t, Richard, sorry to disappoint you.
I find the information persuasive to further motivate me to seek a positively defined solution that improves the lives of Palestinians, and achieves peace for Israel and Israelis.
I find the information persuasive to further motivate me to oppose the punitive approach to realize that.
“I find the information persuasive to further motivate me to oppose the punitive approach to realize that.”
As always, the “punitive approach” means harsh criticism of Israel, along with possible boycotts, which would not be nearly as “punitive” as the actual blockade of Gaza which Richard thinks justified, or the killing of Palestinians in limited ways which he also supports. And harsh criticism and blame for Hamas (though not for Israel or the PA) when they commit atrocities is okay.
You might be right about BDS. But you support the blockade on Gaza. We should be more interested in criticisms of BDS from people with a proven record of holding both sides to the same standards–people, for instance, who condemn the Gaza blockade and don’t try to blame Hamas for Israel’s decisions. I think there are people like that (Uri Avnery, if my memory is correct) and people should take them seriously. You might even cause a split amongst the people who criticize you here if you provided links to others with more credibility making this same case, rather than making the case yourself, because when you say Israel shouldn’t be treated harshly, all of us know you support doing much worse things to Palestinians (telling yourself that it is Hamas’s fault).
Of course, if you’re only here to convince yourself of your own saintliness, by all means stick around, continue to employ double standards, receive the inevitable criticism, and tell yourself it’s because you support peace.
Again Donald,
Hamas does not undertake the path to removing the blockade, and neither do you.
There are two practical options that it and dissent can take, really three:
1. Become a state (declare Gazan independence), seek ratification by the UN, but risk war with Israel in doing so directly, and in any similarly idiotic foreign policy like it conducted last December.
2. Become a state (unify with the PA), seek a treaty with Israel, ratification by the UN, and similarly risk war with Israel by idiotic aggressive foreign policy.
3. Allow international governance of the Gazan port (with little or no Hamas influence on that governance).
All distinctly paths forward, each compromising its pretense militant sovereignty, and/or militia role in favor of responsible and accountable state.
Maybe every Mosque should start singing the Iranian national anthem on Eid on Sunday?
Isn’t singing the anthem of another nation just a teeny bit unpatriotic?
Well, not in and by itself. Singing the anthem of another nation can, depending on the occasion, be a way of paying your respect to citizens of that nation, or to affirm your nation’s friendship with theirs.
In this case, however, it seems to be a case of promoting loyalty to a foreign nation over your own. That is unpatriotic, all right.
Its a statement of support, a natural statement of support.
The way to take the winds out of the sails of the sympathy, is not to oppose the sympathy, but to de-politicize it.
Support for the people, not the policies in other words.
Well, the NYTs may not sing Hatikvah, but they are doing their part:
link to nytimes.com
With a nice link to the AJC website, where they explain to you all about Golstone and his report.
I don’t understand your objection to a tape from a Jew singing New Year services in 1944 in Aachen Germany. Because the link is to the AJC? Must everything in the NYTimes be about the Middle East?
dear WJ, the objection from me is that whenever Israel does something especially bad we are regaled with memories and specials on the holocaust. if there is a special on the sufferings of jews you can be sure that they are being naughty.
Jimby, I see specials highlighting Jewish suffering, of some sort, almost continually. According to your logic, that would imply that Jews are behaving badly more or less all the time. Is that possible?
In the case of the NY Times, I think there is a simpler explanation. Their editorial policy seems to entail throwing out some (kosher) meat, an item or two of Jewish interest, to the Jewish community with almost every issue. No other identifiable group is so favored. Who knows why? Perhaps they are competing in the same market with The Forward. No matter how that must appear to their non-Jewish readership, even though they aspire to be a “national” newspaper of record.
No other identifiable group is so favored. Who knows why? Perhaps they are competing in the same market with The Forward. No matter how that must appear to their non-Jewish readership, even though they aspire to be a “national” newspaper of record.
I don’t think too many people even notice it. I never noticed it until I began researching the I/P conflict and learned about Zionism. Hell, “Zionism” is barely ever uttered in the mainstream here. It’s just become so routine, so normalized over the years.
For that matter, “Zionism” has only recently begun to be talked about on the “left.” Amy Goodman has done reporting on Israel and the Palestinians for years without ever mentioning Zionism until more recently.
This is changing now, of course, due to the internet. But despite Mondoweiss and many other sites, the majority of people still don’t realize how “Zionist-centric” the major news outlets are, mainstream and on the left (the Paleo/Libertarian “right” has done an admirable job of reporting on the subject for some time).
It’s changing, but it’s a slow process…
NYC and its surrounding suburbs have many Jewish residents, so it’s only natural the hometown paper would reflect that even if it also claims to be the national paper of record. If there were a very large number of Ukrainians in the area there would likely be many more articles about Stalin’s famine. I don’t think there’s anything that needs explaining about the large number of articles on the Holocaust or, in this case, Jewish veterans from WWII.
This is not to deny that the NYT has a pronounced pro-Israeli bias, because they do. And for the same reasons, in part–supporting Israel, even to the point of excusing their atrocities, is equivalent in some minds to fighting anti-semitism.
Donald, the NYT supporting Israel even to the point of excusing their (many egregious) atrocities is not equivalent to “fighting anti-semitism”. I think it likely that such attitudes from the NYT, or other predominantly Jewish institutions in America, tend to raise the general level of anti-semitism “lite”.
But anti-Zionism is not at all the same thing as anti-semitism, in spite of the tireless efforts by Zionists to conflate the two. People like me can be strongly ant-Zionist without being anti-semitic. However, when the NYT and others attempt to suppress discussion of Zionism and its harmful consequences for America, this does help establish a conceptual linkage with anti-semitism that is unwanted and unintended by most anti-Zionists. Such linkage of the two, whether overt or inadvertent, is in no one’s legitimate interest. “Friends” of Israel should understand that the inevitable result over time will be an increase in anti-semitism in the general population.
In the week before Jewish New Year’s in the newspaper centered in Manhattan, there is an article about (surprise) Jewish New Year’s (in 1944). This is clearly pandering to the Jews. Next you’re going to be complaining about Passover recipes in the week before Passover. Gimme a break, huh?
I have this vision of Israel adopting a Day of National Atonement in which Israelis confess their sins against the Palestinian Arabs they drove out of their homes. Of course this would require Israel to stop doing the same thing to the Palestinians today, so it’s not likely to get legs. But I am convinced there will never be any kind of peace until Israel acknowledges its guilt.
Ha’aretz today link to haaretz.com
has an op-ed by Jonathan Freedland “Maybe Israel Just Needs to Acknowledge Palestinian Pain.” This is an excellent idea, but I’m afraid Israelis would just ask – “So what would we get out of it? What are we, suckers?”
but I’m afraid Israelis would just ask – “So what would we get out of it? What are we, suckers?”
Good point.
On the eve of the Jewish new year, I think all Jews coming here and all Gentiles too, should be aware of the AIPAC spy trial that was brushed under the rug–here you can
see an update, and you can figure out what this means as American Jews fight amongst
themselves while all of the USA (300 million humans, all but 2% not worthy of consideration) hangs in the balance:
link to original.antiwar.com
The Conservative Rabbis’ political analysis is at odds with that of the Israeli government:
link to nytimes.com
I think what’s really going on is that the Conservative Movement is hemorrhaging members.
link to forward.com
so, this is a desperate attempt to rally the faithful. It won’t work because fear-mongering on the Israel issue cannot replace the traditional agenda of Conservative Jews.
The Conservative Movement are suckers, supporting the Israeli government when the Israeli government doesn’t recognize Conservative Judaism.
“The Conservative Movement are suckers, supporting the Israeli government when the Israeli government doesn’t recognize Conservative Judaism.”
Sounds like a fair exchange to me.
What other religions pray for foreign nations, or a piece of land, as part of their canon? Anyone know?
Good question. I can’t think of any. I’m sure Richard Witty will enlighten us.
Islam. Christianity.
Really? Which country do I pray for in my prayer services?
I don’t know you personally. What do you pray?
In the conservative prayer book that my shul uses, there is a prayer for the state of Israel. I replace the terms “people of Israel” for state. For a while I didn’t state it as irrelevant to religious services.
You don’t pray, “Help the Palestinians achieve justice in your prayers?” I word or in desire?
I pray for the Palestinians, yes. But not Palestine.
I pray for people, not nations and I’m pretty sure it’s the same with Christianity.
And, as I said, I pray for the nation Israel, the people Israel.
And, I even pray for peace for the Palestinians. Do you similarly for Israelis?
I’m sorry but praying for the people OF Israel is very different from praying for the nation of Israel. One shouldn’t care about petty borders and flags, they should care about the people who reside within them. Which goes back to the original question, what other religions pray for foreign nations, or a piece of land, as part of their canon?
And yes I do pray for Israelis and I pray for peace.
Then we are on the same wavelength, and should be able to put our heads together to make some good outcome, if we can minimize the mutual snipering in the process.
“minimize the mutual snipering in the process” (sic)
Richard, given the propensities of the IDF, I would really back off on the “snipering” analogies.
No blessing for the effort to work together towards common mutually beneficial goals.
Only condemnation of the language that I use?
Maybe some Catholics, if they pray for the Pope on Vatican land? Wonder why
since there are so many Catholics, why we aren’t getting taxed to upgrade those
Swiss Guard uniforms and their battle axes?
Catholics don’t sing any national anthems or have any flags in church, including those used to drape coffins. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” is supposed to mean that you check your nationalism at the doo to the church. And the pope is the head of the universal (Catholic) church, not just a head of state.
“And, as I said, I pray for the nation Israel, the people Israel.”
And of course, Richard’s good intentions make it all better. That’s a really strange sense of entitlement for a Jew. But I forgoet, Zionists consider the spiritual condition of the Jews to be degrading.
A central tenet of today’s Zionism is that there is no separation of “church” and state – for Jews. Of course, the principle of separation of “church” and state must (rightly) be maintained for all the goyim. According to this thinking, the US Constitution applies strictly to all Americans EXCEPT Jews. Get it? That’s what exceptionalism means when extended to the political sphere.
Of course, as we see from this blog, many Jewish Americans don’t accept all the tenets of Zionism. Unfortunately, it appears that most American Jews do subscribe to the corrosive notion of Jewish exceptionalism.
“Unfortunately, it appears that most American Jews do subscribe to the corrosive notion of Jewish exceptionalism.”
I wouldn’t be so sure of that, Ishmael. Half of American Jews marry non-Jews , and there is a great deal of concern among Zionists about the general American Jewish apathy toward Israel. The loudmouths are not nearly as representative of American Jews as they would like to think (or like us to think).
“I wouldn’t be so sure of that, Ishmael.”
Thanks for this comment, Shmuel. I appreciate it. Actually, I’m well aware of the facts you related, in part because I myself maintain close Jewish friendships.
Roman Catholicism is not a ‘land based’ religion. There is no article of faith in Roman Catholicism that says that Catholics are promised the deeds to certain plats of land in exchange for conforming behavior.
Augustine’s “City of God” referred to a spiritual condition, not a physical place.
I don’t think I would call Judaism “land based” either. Throughout most of its history Judaism has treated Zion as an ephemeral, spiritual place, symbolic of redemption and proximity to the divine. They didn’t call us “cosmopolitan” for nothing.
“Thanks for this comment, Shmuel. I appreciate it. Actually, I’m well aware of the facts you related, in part because I myself maintain close Jewish friendships”
Cool! Some of my best friends are Jewish, too. Always glad to meet a friend of our race!
Mooser, even I, stupid me, knows that being Jewish doesn’t mean being a member of a particular “race”.
Okay, so it seems now Judiasm=Isaraelism today.
There would be screaming and ranting if Muslims were singing any national anthem other than that of the US; let alone as part of a religious service. If praying for a foreign nation was part of their cannon…..god help them. It would be referred to as treason?
How can people in the US be so passive when it comes to Israel? I know fear of the “anti-Semitism” label.
The Rabbis are calling for letters condemning the report be written to elected officials …. perhaps, now is the time for all good people to write letters to their elected officials in support of the Goldstone report and the UN; reminding them they are elected to represent us, citizens of the US…NOT Israel.
It is a quaint conceit to think that US congresspersons are not elected to represent Israel. First, a candidate for Congress (especially a Democratic one) must go through an AIPAC approval process, which requires declarations of devotion to Israel, to receive adequate financial support in the primaries. Second, in the general election the primary winner must evince greater devotion to Israel than his/her opponent or see the latter showered with AIPAC money. Third, if elected, the incumbent must continue to demonstrate consistent “love” for Israel or be targeted by AIPAC for elimination – the fear of which dogs any (elected or appointed) representative of the United States who would like to put his own country’s interests first.
So, Constituent No. One for our representatives is Israel. How could it be otherwise?
I think there a positive way to turn even the statement of “the state of Israel will be our kol shofar”, which is to insist on the affirmation of “IF you keep my commandments, I will give you the rain in its time….”
And, the commandments including “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s possession”, etc.
The hatefulness in Adam’s and Phil’s posts are really a soul-trapping approach, rather than a soul-liberating.
It is berating, rather than persuading.
“It is berating, rather than persuading.”
Pot. Kettle.
Anything hateful about the statement that Phil quoted–
“We ask you to write to our governmental leaders and call upon them to condemn the Goldstone report”
Sounds like they are advising their congregation to berate rather than persuade. Certainly they don’t want anyone to learn anything from the report.
I asked my representatives to communicate to Israel to take the Goldstone report seriously, to make the reforms necessary that war crimes, or actions that even appear as war crimes, won’t occur in the future.
That’s good, Richard, though the report goes considerably further than anything you believe about Israel’s crimes. And further than you even go on the crimes of the PA, since for ideological reasons you prefer to whitewash the PA and only condemn Hamas. The people who wrote this report seem to have been studiously honest, criticizing everyone who deserves criticism, and not whitewashing this or that faction in the usual Orwellian fashion one expects from ideologues.
But it is good that you did that. I haven’t yet written my representatives, though I know perfectly well what my House representative will say.
Only a sucker “persuades.” Which is to say, the sucker talks, then you laugh at him and do what you please.
Witty wants everyone to be a sucker.
“Only a sucker persuades”.
Witty,
The only rain you and your ilk will see from God is ACID RAIN for your sins.
FPM
That is true if we don’t get to the attitude of “enough is enough for us”.
And Richard, if you would please try to remember anything about Judaism besides those few verses the Zionists use as an excuse, you will remember that we (the Jews) failed miserably at keeping the commandments. We coveted both our neighbors ass, and his wife’s, too. (And if my Dore’ Bible is accurate, it was a nice one) And God removed Himself from our midst for it. And decreed our diaspora. Or did the Romans and Christians turn out to be more powerful than our God? I really doubt that, but maybe you think so.
Your problem, Witty, is that Zionism has made you incapable of being a Jew. You are incapable of coming to grips with, and living with, our spiritual condition.
Go ahead, Richard, be like the Gentiles, chase after your kingdom, and much good it will do you.
Me, I’m a Jew. I’ll wait for God, and if His judgement lasts longer than my life, so be it.
Richard, you can always become a Christian, and then you will have the Victory over Death and Sin you are trying so hard to get from Zionism, at the expense of others.
Enough potshots Mooser.
Is that your Jewishness?
or you could become a Jeffersonian Christian, one who, like Thomas Jefferson, analysed the moral code of Jesus of Nazareth and concluded that it was the most powerful moral code the world had known. Jefferson encapsulated that moral code in The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus.
In days gone by, at the time a new senator took his oath to uphold the US Constitution and to serve the people of the United States, he/she was presented with a copy of The Jefferson Bible. The late Senator Frank Church continued that practice, at his expense, throughout his tenure in the senate. If I recall correctly, the practice was challenged at some point, and it is no longer done. That’s too bad.
How is that a “pot-shot” Richard, you unctuous, sanctimonious and completely condescending creep? I say that the Zionist project and rationalisations for it are completely un-fucking-Jewish.
“Is that your Jewishness?”
I just want to point out this amazing testimony to my basic Jewishness. Guys like Richard always, always, without fail try to make me feel guilty about somehow failing Judaism. You gotta admit, it’s high praise to me that he thinks I can be appealed to on that level.
Or maybe it’s an example of his contempt for me, that he thinks a simple guilt-minipulation like that would have an effect.
Okay, Richard, since you ask, what the hell is your Jewishness? The defense of stolen sand with the blood of Jews and the suffering and expense of others? Yeah, that’ll redound through the ages as a credit to Judaism.
Everything stated as a negative.
I asked what are the Jewish principles that you live? Positive.
My Jewishness is in the key definitions of Jewish identity and responsibility in Torah.
“You shall be a nation of priests”, which I interpret as a commitment to make profound what was previously understand as trivial. That is roughly equivalent to the native American invocation “All my relations”. Both intimate and formal, close and far. It also includes self-acceptance of my individual, my family, my future, my community.
And the more specific road map to accomplish that by the commandments of Torah, in a holarchy.
1. The first two commandments – “I am the lord they God” (God is ONE – holistic, both transcendant and sequential – Creator)
And “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (no distractions, no spiritual materialism, no land as god, no ideology as god whether stated as pro or as anti)
2. The rest of the ten are elaborations of the 2nd.
3. The rest of written and oral Torah are elaborations on the 10.
Another element of my Jewishness that is not chosen by me (as in a menu of spiritual approaches that I get to pick from), is that I am part of a river from my parents and community to my children and community. And, that the community commitment is to continue a community – a NATION of priests.
In practise, my Jewishness is a revision of orthodoxy. I do not adopt the exceptionalist and privileged definition of chosen people, but only the responsibility portion.
I reject both the orthodox approach and the assimilationist rationalization.
How about some Isaiah in shul instead of third rate poetry, jingoism and warmongering:
“Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations–I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.”
“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood”
Ex-frickin-xactly! Zionists always select a few verses from the Torah, but they assiduously ignore the story of the Jews.
The tradition is alive is the point.
If you participate in it actively, then it remains alive. If you renounce it then you see the shell fall, but it is your shell that is falling, not its.
I think I know how this appears to non-Jews: When American Jews sing the Israeli national anthem in unison on demand, it’s a pretty strong indication of where their allegiance lies.
Perhaps it would be wise to be a bit more discreet about it.
As an example of such discretion, the NY Times had a three-page tribute to Irving Kristol today on its website. In it, there was not a word about the devotion to Israel that so typified his brand of neoconservatism. In fact, Israel was not mentioned at all.
Quite an air-brushed piece, that, and a model of good journalistic forbearance.
Ishmael reconciled with Isaac, in honoring their father.
“Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.”
Any comments, Richard, apart from the usual No. 1, 2, 3 or 4?
Lets do it. I, you, Phil, Adam, others.
Its not only political. Its also in how one communicates to others, how one treats one’s family, one’s friends, neighbors.
You have NEVER heard me advocate for anything but defense relative to Israel. I have never advocated for expansion, for excessive military.
You infer that from my comments. But, you infer innaccurately.
What about advocating for the right of Arabs to defend themselves against Israel?
See what I mean about the de-cetralisation of Judaism? It allows someone like Witty to evade responsibility for anything they say. When he thinks he can get over, he’s talking for the Jews. When he’s called on his bullshit, all of a sudden, it’s just little old me.
And no, Richard, I don’t think noticing that your attitude is completely inaprpriate for a Jew is a pot-shot. You seem to have come to the incredibly screwed-up conclusion that we have either paid our debt to God, or that God needs our help to do His will. Either one is dumb, and very un-Jewish. But that’s what Zionism will do to you.
I’m never “talking FOR the Jews”. I am an individual solely, speaking my own mind, my own observations.
In doing so, there is recommendation of my impression at the most effective way to realize good for Israelis and Palestinians.
If you want to talk about Zionism as Zionism, please limit your discussion to that question, so we can actually talk about it.
Its hard to know what you think it DOES mean to be Jewish. I get a little bit from the silhouette approach. Perhaps you can elaborate on your understanding of what you consider worth continuing and how?
“Its hard to know what you think it DOES mean to be Jewish.”
You have got it exactly backwards, Richard. I’m just a Jew, living as a citizen of the United States, and hoping for lessened violence and suffering throughout the world, and peace for the Jews. I am not trying to convince other Americans to favor the fortunes of a colonial settlement of my co-religionists. I am not the one who has to explain himself. My Judaism has hurt no one taken nothing from anyone (well, just one poor unsuspecting Gentile girl, but she seems pleased enough, most of the time.) isn’t trying to influence the US, except towrds the aims above. I don’t have to explain myself, Richard.
It’s you who had better explain your self, Richard, and explain why your Jewishness is so goddam special America has to support it’s theological murderous theme-park.
read above. You misinterpret my convictions.
“If you want to talk about Zionism as Zionism, “
Okay let’s! Here goes: Zionism is a nationalistic movement predicated on racism. That makes it bound to be evil. And Zionism is predicated on Jewish racism, which makes it an object of contemptuous pity. So there you have it. You want it in one sentence: Nothing the Europeans have done to us justifies us doing anything to the Arabs.
We Jews have done nothing more than, in our persecutions, shared the common viscissitudes of mankind, Richard. They entitle us to nothing.
And Zionism is nothing if not a doctrine of entitlement, since everything the Zionists got, they got from the colonial masters of the area, something we Jews should have had nothing to do with.
Zionism in the late 40′s was primarily refugees seeking a safe residence.
That is a right.
If you oppose policies, that is reasonable. To exagerate the desire for coherent residence and nationalism to racism is a fraud.
Your arguments about entitlement might apply to the also exagerated interpretation of the Balfour declaration, but not to the historical reality.
The issues in the present are different ones than the ones from 1917 to the mid-30′s.
You are also literally out to lunch, in equating the multiple strains of Zionism. There are strains in which residence is sufficient, enough is sufficient. That is what I subscribe to. There are strains in which Biblical descriptions of the “land promised to our fathers” is what is desired. I consider those claims to be irrelevant and harmful.
And, then there is the likud rationalization that doesn’t rely on Torah definition, nor sufficiency, but mostly on “cover our flank” motive that is corrupt. (That is “we have an exposed flank, we need to conquer x to protect that flank.” Followed by “now y is an exposed flank, we need to conquer z to protect our flank.”)
Get clear on what you are arguing in general, and what you are arguing with me.
You’ve been negligently remiss in that for all your time posting here.
“To exagerate the desire for coherent residence and nationalism to racism is a fraud.” Your accusation of fraud is unwarranted, RIchard, and appears to be projection, given the manner in which you misrepresent Zionism.
In the 1800′s, a national state came to be thought of by many as the best way to assure individual safety and political independence. Those who first developed plans for Israel did so for that purpose. The words of David Ben-Gurion, from 1944, describe what most people mean when they speak of Zionism, a political ideology that in essence contradicts the religious understanding of Zion, as Mooser points out, and as others have noted.
link to zionism-israel.com
Israel long ago left behind the socialist ideals of Ben-Gurion’s era, but ethno-religous qualifications for citizenship remain embedded in the laws and institutions of Israel, and are rightly described as ‘racist’ – defined as a system of government fostering discrimination on the basis of ‘race’. Racism is defined as a belief that ‘race’ is the primary determinant of human traits – a belief reflected in the insistence on recognition of Israel as a ‘Jewish State.’ What that means, in practical terms, is insitutionalized racism.
blockquote>The UN does not define “racism”, however it does define “racial discrimination”: according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
In practical terms, Zionism means that anyone, regardless of national heritage, able to provide proof of Jewish identity that meets the approval of whomever is severing as arbiter on behalf of the State of Israel has a ‘right of return’ to Israel and is entitled to Israeli citizenship. Those Palestinians who became refugees from Israel during periods of war are denied the right to return to their homeland; ownership of property from which they fled was claimed by the State. Palestinian descendants of refugees face particular restrictions on entry into and travel within Israel based on their identity as Palestinians.
In practical terms, Zioinism means this:
(excerpts from jewssansfrontieres)
link to independent.co.uk
And this:
link to independent.co.uk