“The big change that made the state the primary consented form of Zionism and association among the majority of the world’s Jews was the holocaust.” The argument of the absolute necessity of the state from the point of the Holocaust, whether foundational or current from the standpoint of a “majority” has and always will necessitate the destruction of the Palestinians. So whether overtly or covertly, whether you wear it on you’re sleeve or keep it in you’re pocket, the argument for a “majority” state via the Holocaust is the victimization and perpetual suffering of another people who had no hand in what occurred in the Holocaust.

The fragile “demographic” lead is maintained by ignoring international law, which is taken for its benefit among the Israelis but not for its responsibility. If at any time the call was made and enacted for the return of the Palestinians the “majority” would disappear. Likewise it is maintained by the murder, destruction, and continuous expulsion and exile of the indigenous population from their land. It is this fact that Einstein would not recognize, and bemoaned to his death, because it was the same use of a “nation state,” the Hegelian bitch which caused the non-recognition, genocide, and expulsion of the Jewish population from Europe.

No Witty, it is you’re immediate reaction that the statement I used was to do away with any homeland for Jews, just for emphasis:

“Arguing that a Jewish Majority in Palestine was not important, Einstein dismissed the goal of a Jewish state: “The state idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with many difficulties and narrow-mindedness. I believe it is bad.”

Einstein NEVER supported the forced MAJORITY of Jews as a state, this was the contextual setting of the statement. Now, you can twist and obfuscate all you like, but it is you’re failure to read and understand what is being written, that is always you’re problem Witty – the only question here is it purposeful on your part or do you have some ailment that causes you to constantly misread posts. A bi-national state which he supported does not carry the proviso of a majority state.

Yes, we are sure that he would have totally denounced Israeli activity today, because he never argued for what you hold to at its inception or later. Or would you go as far as other reprobate “Zionists” that put words in a dead mans mouth? You do not own Einstein, in fact, those of you’re persuasion do not own shit, you profusely lie and when dutifully whacked you twist and whine.

The people I cited were the foundation bulwark of progressive Mapam, not those which called for the majority of Jews in Erez Yisrael. Buber in his 80th birthday (1958) gave an address was filled with anguish about reconciliation with the Palestinians, which was also the theme of Magnes. He stated with a tortured voice that “. . . the majority of the Jewish people preferred to learn from Hitler rather than from us. Hitler showed them that history does not go the way of the spirit but the way of power, and if a people is powerful enough, it can kill with impunity as many millions of another people as it wants to kill. This was the situation that we had to fight.” This was the anguish and of Hannah, if you do not mind me quoting myself from a previous post –

Hannah knew that her problem was not that she was stateless, but the nation state in the 20th century that reduced Jews to a non-recognized minority. This now produces another “stateless” among the Palestinians. The only question that remains is will the state of Israel try to liquidate the “problem” they created.

So the question of Ahabath Israel remains, of which she answers that I love my friends not a people. She goes on to rightly consider the non-separation of religion and state disastrous (and it has proven to be true). Or the substitution of god for the people, so that even the interpretation is that the people returning is essentially the mashiach – she does not believe in them but belongs to them. She is physei and not nomo. Being this she can take her own stand politically, whether or not they conform to some supposed norm of “Jewish” in being or in the political position. What had changed from her earlier views? That we may indeed by Jewish yet be divergent in our views. The rise of Fascism and totalitarianism did away with a place in the nation state, which arose from personal experience. So to accede to Zionism is to do away with the universal nature of the Never Again, and carries with it the seeds of our own destruction.

The rest of the prominent names I mentioned above followed suit with the same conclusions.

The fact is that Hamas shell civilians because only civilians are within range of their rockets.

Even by your standards, you have reached a new level of incoherence. I was half expecting you to argue, that it depends on what the definittin of “is” is..

No it’s not simplistic Ricahrd, it’s just pain obvious, though I am inclined to agree that it wasn’t merely a provocstion, but the opening salvo of an act of war on the part of the Israelis.

How does a willingness to accept Israel’s attack comport with nutual responsibility? Once a ceasefire is over, it’s overt and there Hamas were prefectly entitled to respond to an attack.

The opposite of a ceasefire is war. There is no difference between the end of a ceasfire and resuming hostilities. As for the succeeding escalation, we’ve already been thbrough this Richard. The Israelis were imposing an act fo war on Gaza, even suring the ceasefire, so Hamas were demonstrating self restraint as it was, by stickign to it.

The esclation was entirely drivn by the Israelis.

That is true. I mean, he can talk about it (he should talk about it), but it evidently was not part of what he was authorized to investigate and put into a report. The report had to focus solely on war crimes. What rule doesn’t allow for the context of the occupation to be presented in a war crimes report, I don’t know, but it obviously needs to be changed, for the sake of humanity.

I NEVER “used” the holocaust as an “excuse” to perpetrate suffering on the Palestinians.

““state” exists as today”, nice switch (you car salesman). I’m sure that like me, Einstein would be very critical of Israel’s current policies. Even as he stated admiration for Israel’s government and other state institutions during its period of inception and development, he hated likud (then cherut) and the neo-fascist goals and methods that they employed.

“We thought [Israel] would be better than other nations, but it was no better.”

You are not very astute. You state that he didn’t advocate for the Jewish state in any moment of his life, but very obviously supported it by that statement at its inception (and was disappointed in many aspects of it).

A quote from 1946, in the context of being prior to civil and then external war, is out of context to the point of fraud.

You can bring up his and others earlier ideas as proposals. They might be relevant now or not, but not because Einstein “consistently” opposed the formation of the state. Of the individuals you quoted, only Judah Magnes publicly stated their regret that a Jewish state occurred. All were critical, as was the appropriate realization of a democratic Jewish state.

Were the individuals you sited actively and personally involved in Mapam? I never read that about any of them.