On October 16, I spoke on a panel for the Joint Peace with Justice Committee of the Minneapolis and St. Paul Area synods, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, entitled “Seeking Israeli/Palestinian Peace: Varied Voices from the Jewish Community.” The forum was organized by Charles Lutz, a Lutheran pastor who has had an interest in the Middle East for many years, led delegations to Palestine, and brought Palestinians to Minneapolis to address this and other groups.
When the Jewish Community Relations Council of the Dakotas and Minnesota (JCRC) approached Lutz and asked to address his Joint Peace with Justice Committee, Lutz replied that he would only allow it as part of a panel of different Jewish perspectives, including representatives of J-Street, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN), which I represent.
In advance of the panel I attempted to contact as many media outlets as possible, including the local National Public Radio station, the local Fox affiliate, and the American Jewish World newspaper. No media covered the event, with the exception of a local cable access program “Our World in Depth,” which filmed the entire program, and will air it in the next few weeks (it will also be posted on line at http://ourworldindepth.org/). This was disappointing. Obviously, I thought it was a bigger story than reporters or editors in either the main stream or alternative media did. Interestingly, the editor of the American Jewish World had not heard about the event when I notified him in September, which meant that JCRC and J-Street had not advertised in their usual spaces. The AJW editor was not in the audience for the event either.
Based on audience responses, JCRC seemed to be the only organization not to bring out its own supporters. This was also disappointing. The “winner” was the presenter with the most supporters, not the one with the most compelling argument.
Sitting quietly and uncomfortably in the back of the room was my father, the committed Zionist, who probably wanted to come just to watch my arguments shredded. He arrived after most people were already seated, and had no choice but to sit among my supporters and shift uneasily in his seat as they applauded. The next day he tried to give me literature from the Jewish National Fund to convince me that, despite what I said about that agency in my speech, it is “environmentally friendly” and is turning the Negev desert green. I showed him pictures of the destruction of El Araqib, but he told me he doesn’t believe me because “Jews wouldn’t do that.” I’m unlikely to move the opinion of a 90-year old.
Steve Lear, of the JCRC, spoke first. His initial comments were that his organization represents the majority Jewish opinion. Even though there is a large diversity of Jewish opinion, he said, the overwhelming majority of Jews believe that face-to-face negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians are the only path to a long-term, viable peace, that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, and that the active campaign to delegitimize Israel has to stop. In a single sentence he connected BDS to the Crusades, the Holocaust, and suicide bombers and said that BDS is just another way to exterminate Jews.
This was stunning, since I know that if I had, for example, made the analogy between Israeli treatment of Palestinians today and Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews in the 1930s (as Hajo Meyer has), I would have been labeled an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier. Apparently, Holocaust analogies can only be made in one direction. Lear also made the point that JVP and IJAN are in the “periphery of Jewish thought,” and that the problem with the delegitimizers is that there is a lack of acceptance of other people’s opinions. Clearly, this lack of acceptance also only goes one way.
Jordan Ash, the organizer of JVP-Minnesota, gave a beautiful, moving speech, showing how betrayed he felt by Israel when he came to the realization that, first, Israel was actively participating in South Africa’s apartheid regime, and then that Israel’s own treatment of Palestinians was oppressive and abusive of their human rights. Ash gave an articulate and compelling indictment of the US’s role in covering for Israel in the UN and denying Palestinians their self-determination and human rights.
Ron Garber, a co-chair of J Street/Minnesota said J Street believes in two things: First to encourage the American government to take a leadership role and help broker a viable two-state solution, and second to broaden the dialog between the American community and the American Jewish community to create the environment so that both sides (Israelis and Palestinians) can make peace. To me, this sounded like Palestinians were an afterthought; that the players in this drama were Americans, American Jews, and Israeli Jews. He understands the contradiction between having all the land, having a democracy, and having a Jewish state, and so to maintain the best two out of three, he is willing to give up some land.
Garber said that J-Street opposed the recent Palestinian bid for the UN to recognize statehood because it was “unilateral,” and also opposed the US Congress cutting off funds to the Palestinian Authority, since although they opposed the bid it was “a legal and non-violent means.” Yet J Street also opposes BDS, even though that is clearly also legal and non-violent.
I spoke about Zionism as racism, colonialism, and apartheid, and used examples taken from my personal story as a Jew married to a Palestinian ’48 refugee. As I’m sure will be clear from the video [we will post when we get it--editor], Garber and Lear tried to make Ash and me look like unreasonable and uncompromising fanatics. (What’s unreasonable about demanding that a state comply with international law? Why should we compromise on inalienable human rights?) Jordan clearly had the better answers to their charges.
Following the panel, I felt that it had served little purpose. Most of the audience, perhaps all of them, had entrenched opinions which would not be moved by anything that anyone on that panel could say. (To move people’s opinions, we only need to rely on Israel’s own actions in piracy in international waters, murdering civilians, abusing human rights, and passing anti-democratic laws, which work much better at exposing Israel’s brutality and moving entrenched opinion than anything I could say.) The purpose of the panel, to show the range of Jewish thought on this subject, only displayed this range to the few regulars who attend the Joint Peace with Justice Committee meetings, who also had already formed their opinions. Instead of the panel being an opening to further dialogue, I cannot envision a similar panel in the future, and I see little interest on any of the panelists’ part in continuing a dialogue. Perhaps our time and energy is better spent reaching out to people who aren’t as familiar with the issue.
What the panel did show, above anything that was actually said in the room, was that the Zionists, increasingly desperate, are losing control. The same tactics used for decades to marginalize opposing viewpoints are no longer working. The charge of anti-Semitism or self-hating Jew is no longer as terrifying as it once was. With all the effort that Israel and the American Zionist community is putting towards propaganda and rebranding Israel, it is gratifying to know that those of us who care about human rights and justice are making the Zionists’ work increasingly difficult and that ultimately we will prevail.
“but he told me he doesn’t believe me because “Jews wouldn’t do that.” ”
What a monster Israel has become.
I must say ,the Palestinian insistence on no talks without movement on the Israeli side is very impressive. They are fed up with the mendacity. Presumably the writer’s dad doesn’t believe that Israelis would spend 20 years lying to the world either.
“Zionism is racism”?
How could the liberation of a people from the depth of genocide and centuries of suppression be racism.
The excesses of Zionism may contain racism, but how does the urge for a home space for self-governance equate to racism, in fact, not just in slogan?
Zionism predates WWII, Richard, so it was in no way an attempt to “liberate people from the depth of genocide.” It was, rather, and is a philosophy based upon religious and ethnic superiority that seeks to carve out a unique entity solely for the Jewish people, not simply so that they may have a homeland -Jews already had multitudes of homelands- but rather so that they did not have to live among the goyim; too distasteful.
Now, even assuming that the majority of Zionists are honestly simply supportive of a Jewish homeland out of a sense of shared identity and pride, not from explicit racism, this homeland still comes at the expense of uprooting nearly a million innocent Palestinian Arabs, atrocious treatment of local Sephardic Jews, and has led to over sixty years of insulation and inhumane aggression towards neighboring non-Jews. One cannot casually support the concept of Zionism and come to terms with the realities it has caused without having utter disregard for the worth of Palestinian lives, in other words, one cannot be an avowed Zionist without condoning/accepting/embracing a particularly vile form of racism, one that transcends the “intellectual” or the emotional, and metastasizes itself in the physical, in violence, oppression, and blood.
but zionism was a response to anti-semitism. herzl was plainly motivated by antisemitism. was it also exclusive, nationalistic, and did it rely on bankers to, herzl hoped, bribe the ottoman empire? yes
Zionism was precipitated by then-extant prejudices (in terms of prejudice against Jews, but also chauvinism among Jews). But, quite frankly, I find the emotional justifications for Zionism circa 1880s to be entirely irrelevant in addressing the physical repercussions of Zionism today. In 2011, one cannot dismiss the violence, the despair, the turmoil, that has been borne out of Zionism by stating that initially “it was a just a movement to create a homeland.” That’s naive. That’s revisionism. That’s Richard Witty.
one would like to forgive witty for living in the past and not staying in touch with reality.. at this point zionism is racism thru and thru.. the zionism witty fondly identifies with is something from a far away, long ago past…
And in the Balfour Declaration there were specific things said about recognizing the local “civil and religious rights of non Jewish people” all ready living in Palestine. How crazy when people say there was never a Palestine.
Balfour declaration didnt have a legal backround.
“centuries of suppression..” that is the narrative, but the examined reality has many sides, even sponsorship, support of Jewish communities by kings and rulers. All cloistered groups experienced harsh treatment by neighbors, etc. It is how humans behave to the isolated “other” who may appear different. We are a primitive lot.
So a thousand years ago some stupid British king banned the Jews organized into communities out of the Island. And then Oliver Cromwell organized a mass immigration of Jews into Britain over 350 years ago as Catholic heads lined the London Bridge.
All defined groups people can claim a heritage of victim-hood…..it they choose. Persecution is not unique to those of the Jewish religion.
“Now, even assuming that the majority of Zionists are honestly simply supportive of a Jewish homeland out of a sense of shared identity and pride, not from explicit racism, this homeland still comes at the expense of uprooting nearly a million innocent Palestinian Arabs, atrocious treatment of local Sephardic Jews, and has led to over sixty years of insulation and inhumane aggression towards neighboring non-Jews. ”
Hence the need for reform, not for revision or denial of European Jews experience over an extended period.
Ellen,
Don’t make the prejudicial error of minimizing the extent and forms of European anti-semitism.
The Palestinian cause is more served by sensitivity to Jews’ historical persecution, in the effort to make human sympathy the motivating factor for real liberation for the Palestinians.
Assume that they will be neighbors for an extended period, and that the health of one is dependent on the health of the other.
richard i agree with you in your repetition of the word European.
and i think my bottom line here is always geographical. jerusalem is 500 miles east of istanbul. as sullivan says, israel is not welcomed by its neighbors, let alone half the people it governs. that is dispositive for me. let the europeans be europeans/we should not have made arabs carry the burden for antisemitism.. phil
Richard, I would call it a Christian heritage of anti-Judaism. As most of Europe is/was of the Christian culture, that fear and distrust was entrenched in European Christian culture.
(Just as fear and distrust of the non-Jew. Perhaps enduring? As even today my Jewish friends would be horrified if one of their children married a non-Jew. Yet I cannot imagine any non Jew concerning themselves for one second if their child married a Jew. Why is that? )
I do not accept the absurd misnomer “Anti-Semitism” for Anti Jewish. Semites are Arabic speaking cultures. Jewish culture is found in many languages.
Richard,
Hence the need for reform? Reform of what? Reform of Israel? Reform of Zionism? It’s too late for that, Witty. I’m sorry, but Zionism will be obliterated, and Israel as you know it will be torn down and dismantled. There will be no reformation, and you are among those to blame for that.
“let the europeans be europeans/we should not have made arabs carry the burden for antisemitism.. phil”
Phil,
The urge and validity of Zionism is not limited to the needs of European Jews’ protection from overt, applied and institutionalized anti-semitism.
There is no setting in which the nationalist greater Israel theme of “the land is historically Jewish”, applies legally whether one applies features of international law, or of common or even statutory law.
The sentiment of “next year in Jerusalem” (both literally and metaphorically -not one to the exception of the other), creates a sentimental link, a valid basis of motivation to settle in the land legally.
The history creates the momentum that makes the legality less relevant for a period. The *need* contrasts with the utopian ideal. The need for refugee placement from Europe, that increased in intensity over a long period. The prohibition from immigration to the US and Europe leading up to, during and following WW2. The harrassment of legally purchasing settlers in Israel. The uprisings, civil and international wars, with at least partially the motivation of sending the Jewish refugees and legal settlers alike back to “where they came from”. The harrassment of North African, and middle eastern and Persian/Iranian Jews following the formation of the state of Israel.
The persecution in Europe and to a much lesser extent, the dhimmi status in the Arab world, contributed to the desire, the utopia of Zionism.
The refugee status of European Jews (accompanied by harrassment upon return to survivors’ European former homes), the harrassment of legally purchasing Jewish settlers and later the civil and international wars, contributed to the need for a Zionist state.
That brilliant idealists like Martin Buber and Albert Einstein acknowledged need for and celebrated the formation of the Israeli state, in 47/48/49, confirms to me that the state was a need, and not only an opportunism.
Is a Jewish state needed now, is a relevant question. But, it can’t be answered only by considering the anti-semitism question. There is now a self-governing, relatively democratic Israel, that has a legitimate undeniable precedent.
There is also a grossly persecutorial greater Israel, that should not and cannot remain the permanent status.
What “we” should not have done (you and I were negative 6/7 in 48), is irrelevant. What should be done now is relevant.
That brilliant idealists like Martin Buber and Albert Einstein acknowledged need for and celebrated the formation of the Israeli state, in 47/48/49, confirms to me that the state was a need, and not only an opportunism.
Huh?
Albert Einstein wrote in 1938, “Just one more personal word on the question of partition. I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain–especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state.”
On December 2, 1948, Albert Einstein signed an open letter to the New York Times which stated:
“Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.”
Martin Buber, too, completely opposed the idea of Zionism as nationalism, that is, he disavowed the notion of an insulated Jewish state in Palestine. Co-founder of Brit Shalom (Covenant of Peace), Buber fought for a binational state with shared governance and equal rights for European Jews and Arabs. Speaking about the newly created Jewish state of Israel in 1947, Buber said, “The cry of victory does not have the power of preventing the clear-eyed from seeing that the soul of the Zionist enterprise has evaporated…. What sober and honest man, looking about himself in today’s reality, could say that we are engaged in a process of regeneration? … a goal has been reached, but it is not called Zion…[The] day will yet come when the victorious march of which our people is so proud today will seem to us like a cruel detour.”
“The Palestinian cause is more served by sensitivity to Jews’ historical persecution, in the effort to make human sympathy the motivating factor for real liberation for the Palestinians.”
Gawd almighty! I don’t think I’ve ever seen such convoluted narcissistic reasoning as that.
So if Palestine were more sympathic to Jew’s persecution, although they nothing to do with it, while Jews are killing them and stealing their land, it would liberate them and bring peace?
So witty if the Palestines got down their knees, bowed toward Israel and said we acknowledge the Jews persecution and we who had nothing to do with it are willing to pay for it any way the Jews demand.
So what then?
Sensitivity is not obeisance. Sensitivity elevates oneself psychologically to the status of peer, not of subservient.
In many ways the resistance approach continues the psychology of subservient more than the self-affirmation of active compassion.
That is the lesson of non-violent approaches to dissent, the empowerment inherent.
Einstein’s comment was in 1938, not 1947. I don’t have quotes at my fingertips, but he supported the formation of Israel (definitely with more than reservations about Irgun and Stern Gang practicies), as did Buber (who chose to remain in Israel).
After 1948, Buber accepted Israel as Israel and continued to urge it to form close relations with its neighbors., even a federation. I don’t know of specific writings, but I expect he would have opposed the 50-51 laws prohibiting return, but he still continued to reside there.
He certainly never advocated for the “greater Israel” vision, but also did make statements acknowledging the importance of Zionism, and continued long-standing mutually respectful friendships with leading Zionists through his and their lives.
RW :
Yup, that theme is a hoax.
Sentimental link creates legal right ?
And here did RW throw the international law to the trash can. I am amazed why i’m not amazed at all.
Unfortunately. All 7 % which they bought. And because zionista plans were quite known by palestinians.
What international wars you mean ? And that harrassment is mostly exaggerated.
Dhimmi status ? Completely exaggerated.
In fact Albert Einstein was against whole State Of Israel in first place.
link to einsteinonisrael.com
Not at all. Talk about State Of Israel instead. Israel state makes definitions, not us here.
How often do we hear this crap from Witty? The dog ate my quotes and links sir.
Why not just make something up and put it in quotations like you always do Witty?
Exiled at Home, why are you quoting Einstein and Buber?
Witty knows what they meant far better than they did or you do.
” The sentiment of “next year in Jerusalem” (both literally and metaphorically -not one to the exception of the other), creates a sentimental link, a valid basis of motivation to settle in the land legally.
Sentimental link creates legal right ?”
No it doesn’t. It creates the motivation to purchase land and settle. It does NOT connote the legal right to expropriate occupied land.
It does connote the equal legal right to Palestinians to individually settle in unoccupied land and establish title rights by that.
The questions of the national character of state or untitled land is complex and is abused by all that make claims. (pro-Israeli AND pro-Palestinian). For example, the claim that Jews had only purchased 7% of the land and therefore it is overwhelmingly nationally Palestinian, with the presumption that the 93% other land was owned by individual Palestinians is a falsehood. The majority of the land of Israel is desert, the Negev, that nobody held title to, was public or common land. And, much of other land (excepting the already developed agricultural land), was also public or common or unoccupied.
RW :
We have a problem here. Those people came from outside of the palestine. Second, british rulers didnt have a legal right to give away an inch of a land to outsiders.
Unfortunately state of Israel has different approach to this.
Its very easy one :
link to icj-cij.org
First, its not a “claim” that zionistas purchased 7 % of land. Its a fact.
Second, to that “93 %” question. I strongly suggest that you read follow document, specially chapter 4. Hardly in ANY country, whole land is owned by individual persons. So is it your claim, that to a non-state area, anyone can go and just take land “because it doesnt belong to anybody”. Maybe you & ziobot gang forget something in here ? That quite a lot british rulers used old ottoman laws in palestine. And make a guess just for a fun, did ottomans have a regulations at all to the so called “state land”.
link to unispal.un.org
Good to know. So anyone can walk in and take a piece of land because it doesnt belong to Israel, or anybody else in matter of fact a’la RW. Where did i put my passport, im finding tickets to the next flight…..
Mig,
“We have a problem here. Those people came from outside of the palestine. Second, british rulers didnt have a legal right to give away an inch of a land to outsiders.”
So you don’t believe that people from outside of the land have the right to buy land legally, and live there? And, the British did not give land to outsiders.
The only period that land taken was in steps in 1948 and much much less so after: 1. Exodus from the land during the 1948 war, 2. Legal prohibition from return, even to make title claims in court, 3. Transfer of “abandoned” land to state and then quasi-state institutions.
From 1951 -present, some land has been taken by eminent domain, but nowhere near the scope of 1948 -51. It is not nothing certainly, but it should be understood as it is, not as sloganed.
Again, there are statistics on the degree of public, common and unclaimed land in the region. That total adds up to 100%. The implication that 7% was legally owned by Jewish owners, implying that 93% was owned by Palestinian, is a false one.
Yes, I remember you once wanted to settle somewhere in Oregon, but run into problems, right? So only before a nation is founded the “national character of state or untitled land” is in question?
Only a state has the right to dispossess on a mayor scale?
Hard to know what you are saying LeaNder.
“So you don’t believe that people from outside of the land have the right to buy land legally, and live there?”
That’s really a question that should have been asked of the then-present resident, right??? That whole “self-determination” thing you’re so hot on… Or is it only Jews who should be permitted to exercise that right of self-determination?
“And, the British did not give land to outsiders.”
Arthur Balfour just laughed.
RW :
Did british rulers have a right to judge that ?
OOooooo they did. So you didnt read that document that i give ??
Great. Give a link.
“So you don’t believe that people from outside of the land have the right to buy land legally, and live there?”
Not without the consent of the inhabitants of the territory. Since, in this case, the inhabitants were not consulted about the relevant laws, and made their objections to the process clear, it seems that consent was not given.
Since no Aborigine ever gave consent for Brits to buy land or dump convicts in Australia, by what right does any non-Aborigine own land in Australia then? Since obviously you believe you own your house, it is clear you are using a bogus argument.
“Since no Aborigine ever gave consent for Brits to buy land or dump convicts in Australia, by what right does any non-Aborigine own land in Australia then?”
Good question, and one that generates fairly lively discussion in Australia. The British Government didn’t buy the land. They just took it. The “Native title” decisions and the practice of acknowledging Traditional Ownership recognize this.
link to foundingdocs.gov.au
Land ownership under the laws imposed by the British was legal, but does not seem to have any moral foundation. Since the Australian Government is more-or-less democratically elected, its current laws for land ownership can be said to have at least a whisper of consent, and thus a faint odour of morality.
I will certainly never claim anything more than legal right to land.
Where did I claim more than legal right to my house? I have said many times that I own my house just as you own yours, I have a deed that can withstand any court challenge. That is the only reason.
Since according to you neither your nor my land ownership has any moral foundation, on what grounds are you exactly asking me to return my land since you have no plans of returning yours?
I’m not asking you to return it. I’m telling Richard that the Zionists did not have the moral right to buy the land without the consent of the Palestinians.
“How could the liberation of a people from the depth of genocide and centuries of suppression be racism.”
Because one deals with the release of a shackle on oneself and the other deals with the imposition of a shackle on another. Virtually no one is opposed to the liberation of Jews from the oppression they suffered and from the genocidal impulses of the National Socialists. One can hold these feelings and also state that the manner that those who were liberated then acted was wrong.
If a slave society gains its freedom and turns around and enslaves it captors, we must be joyful of the liberation and condemn the subsequent enslavement.
“The excesses of Zionism may contain racism, but how does the urge for a home space for self-governance equate to racism, in fact, not just in slogan?”
Because, in fact, they could not accomplish their goal of such a “home space” without committing a crime against the population of the land in which they chose to make that “home space.” You might be okay with holding your nose while the crime is done, and your fellows might believe that the crime committed against the Palestinians was a good thing to create a “greater good,” but your inability to separate the facts on the ground from the Platonic fantasy of Jewish self-representation does not obligate anyone else to agree with you or to excuse the inexcusable actions taken to create that state.
how does the urge for a home space for self-governance equate to racism
when it is carried out in a racist way. as an analogy let’s say your son has an urge for a wife. if you ask me “how does the urge for wife equate to murder?” i would tell you it equates to murder when that urge is directed towards a woman who is already married to another man and your son murders the man to marry the wife. if every occurrence of marriage was precipitated by murder, people would begin to associate marriage with murder.
and when you say “Hence the need for reform” i would tell you i have no problem with your son marrying a single girl but palestine is already taken. to me ‘reform’ means if zionism is to exist it should find a land with no people.
I heard the logic that sex was evil from very radical feminists that had previously been raped or abused, and hated male sexuality, all of it.
I don’t think that that is true. I think sex is a great thing, that can be abused or can be shared and enjoyed.
Zionism, the liberation of the Jewish people from extended persecution was a good thing, a needed thing.
The application of it requires reform to be a liberation in fact.
According to your invisible logic ,this feminist ,just because she was abused and assaulted, should have the full right to abuse and assault all random men , who happen to come by her way.
You give a victim a green light to become a victimizer.
A victimizer, not even towards the ones ,who directly inflicted pain on the victim , but a victimizer of completely innocent ,powerless people, who had nothing to do with the crime.
divert fail richard.
you ignored my answer. you asked me how zionism related to racism and my analogy addressed that. it had nothing to do w/sex being evil.
RW :
I agree. Dark side in this of course is that these persecuted peoples started persecute other peoples without of a blink of an eye.
Richard.
Let’s say ,I’m persecuted in my own country.
I come, on a wooden boat ,to your beautiful country , to your cozy town, and your town ‘s municipality decides to kick you, and your family, out from your house and garden to make a room for me. Nice.
And then the rest of my big family and friends come, and the rest of your family and friends get kicked out of their houses,lands etc.
You ‘ve been offered some tiny bit of an abandoned ,uncultivated land ,on the outskirts of town, where the wolves , skunks and raccons wonder ,and the big town’s garbage dumpster is located. No water, no heat, no light, scarce food, bands of local thugs trying to take over your meager hovel.
Would you be happy about it??
Would you acknowledge my sorry history of persecution ,in some far away , unknown for you country, and cry over this, and gladly accept your miserable fate ,that resulted ,not from your personal decision ,but township’s municipality decision, that had nothing to do with your will??
If yes, then, pack your staff and give me your address.
Dumvita,
I’m not going to deny my own community’s experience, nor am I going to deny the experience of Palestinians.
And, in the present, the legal question of right to a day in court for aggrieved Palestinians is a no-brainer to me, even if many Israelis would make that difficult or impossible.
However, ANY political expression that takes the current form of urging mass forced removal, or mass suppression of legal rights, in a pendulum swing, is a current evil, using a past experience as a rationalization.
Lets make our stand be about getting to the real, improving the present, and not about a fight of which rationalization is the better one.
@not-so-witty,witty
Uh???????????
“Would you acknowledge my sorry history of persecution ,in some far away , unknown for you country, and cry over this, and gladly accept your miserable fate”
Yea, I’ve asked witty that a thousand times…he never answers.
Because he would have to say he believes Jewish welfare trumps all others no matter the means.
Haven’t Native Americans accepted their fate? When are you going to give them back the Mid West?
For me, the welfare of the Jews is important. For you, the welfare of Americans is more important. For others, the welfare of Palestinians. That is only natural. And don’t tell me that you care about everybody’s welfare because that is bull. You want American politicians to focus on the US, not other countries and you want to spend money at home, not somewhere else. Americans are not happy to be unemployed because it helped raise living standards in China. Try that argument and see how popular it is.
“How could the liberation of a people from the depth of genocide and centuries of suppression be racism?”
If settlers had bought, instead of stolen the land, then in cases where non-Jews lived among them offered rights equivalent to Jews, and if the entire system of laws did not privilege only Jews, or were applied inequitably, then perhaps the charges of racism would be unfair.
But, since you asked, and since that’s the reality of the state of Israel, it’s Zionism is indeed racism. Spare me Tevye’s violins and the martyrology. Just take an honest look at the present reality.
witty doesn’t deal with reality, he likes his fantasy zionism much better.
My “fantasy” Zionism, is what I am working for, my goal.
You?
No Zionism anywhere, regardless of the desire of a super-majority in a population in a region?
Richard Witty is the only realist here. The rest are dealing in fantasies, but not only that, dangerous fantasies. Zionism like other forms of nationalism is here to stay. It is not racism and it is not colonialism, it is a basic yearning of the Jewish people for a state of their own.
What Witty is trying to tell you is the following: If you define the conflict or argue for getting rid of Zionism you are defining the conflict in an all or nothing way, not as something that two people can reach a compromise about. And in fact, conflicts such defined often end badly for one side. By the way, how sure are you that it will not end badly for the Palestinians?
On the other hand, if you accept Richard’s sound advice, you would define the issue as making changes in Zionism and reaching an historical compromise. That is a realistic goal for which you could get much support, support that you are losing with your radical all or nothing approach.
No Zionism anywhere
nowhere that i know of. where else is it being practiced besides palestine. i’m open tho.
eee :
And kicking indigenous population out. Was that the “basic yearning” also ?
Was there desire to leave a just a little bit apartheid in SA ?
twiddly diddly dee. Should we do those changes to zionism ? Historical reaching my hasbara.
eee,
You and Witty still do not understand the important distinction between modern Western democratic nationalism, which is founded on the equal rights of citizens from all ethnic and religious backgrounds, and messianic ethnic and/or religious nationalism.
No matter how many times this critical distinction is brought to your attention, you manage to evade and ignore it.
If a major effort were made to officially define America as an Anglo-Christian state, and violence were used to achieve this state of affairs, you would get it in spades.
Most of the Israel lobby these days is pretty much out to lunch and increasingly adrift from reality.
eee, other forms of nationalism? Italian Fascism and National Socialism were forms of nationalism too. It is racism because ethnic cleansing is a policy dating back to Herzl. There was no yearning of Jewish people for a state of their own until it was forced upon them and instilled via brainwashing.
You’re right about the all or nothing thing. It will end badly for one side just like Italian Fascism and National Socialism. It won’t be the Palestinians. Despite Ben-Gurion saying the expelled Arabs would forget in a couple generations, that did not happen. Zionism, like all forms of fascism, deserves to end badly. It is an ideology incompatible with human morality. All this talk of Jewish self-determination and eons of oppression, etc. was just how they sold it to you. It’s like a cell phone. They sell it to you, even give it away, to lock you into a two-year contract that costs more than the phone to break. Most people never stop and think of the hidden service cost behind it. Yes I am comparing Zionism to a cell phone service contract. You’ve sold your souls to a vile ideology which is costly to snap out of (in terms of family/friends/the whole ‘waking up’ thing) and you keep buying into it because they make it out to be something desirable.
And you don’t read what I write, which agrees with your criticism of messianic ethnic nationalism.
But, doesn’t agree that democratic nationalism is an evil.
>> eee: Nationalism like other forms of nationalism is here to stay.
You are wrong here, eee. Nationalism peaked one hundred years ago. Been downhill ever since. The world is getting smaller and more cosmopolitan. Entropy, baby, entropy. You and your antiquated worldview is fading fast. -N49.
So you aknowledge that real Zionism is racism, which is why you are “working” to make your fantasy Zionism a reality?
I agree that the application of some Zionist policy is racist, as I believe that the application of much anti-Zionism is racism, in attempting to deny Jews the right to self-govern in a place.
Applications originate in thinking, so I do observe pro-Zionist racist thinking, and anti-Zionist racist thinking. The racist thinking is prominent in both, not incidental.
To those that think of morality or compassion as the driver of their politics, they will attempt to identify prejudicial attitudes and remove them. To those that ideology or reaction is the driver of their politics, they will attempt to shield their prejudicial attitudes from their own sight.
Witty,
You just did it again:
“And you don’t read what I write, which agrees with your criticism of messianic ethnic nationalism.
But, doesn’t agree that democratic nationalism is an evil.”
The main issue is not messianism per se, but *ethnic* and/or *religious* nationalism of any kind. Ethnic and religious nationalism are incompatible with the basic values and practices of modern Western democracies.
Or do you really believe that Afrikaners should have the official right to rule South Africa? That Christian ethnic Germans should have the official right to rule Germany? That white Christians should have the official right to rule the United State?
Haven’t Jews traditionally opposed ethnic, religious and ethno-religious nationalist states in the Diaspora for all the obvious reasons, including, especially, self-interest?
Why do you think it is that neo-Nazis like Anders Breivik rank among the biggest fans of Israel and Zionism? They are looking forward to the opportunity (once again) to treat non-white Europeans and non-Christians with the same high-handed methods that Jewish Israelis have used to brutalize Palestinians.
Please try to provide a rational response this time.
Richard Witty wrote:
“I agree that the application of some Zionist policy is racist, as I believe that the application of much anti-Zionism is racism, in attempting to deny Jews the right to self-govern in a place.”
Are you racist if you deny the right of white Christians to “self-govern” in the United States? The right of Afrikaners to “self-govern” in South Africa? The right of white Christians to “self-govern” in Europe?
Do you realize how little sense you are making? You still do not understand the fundamental character of modern Western democracies.
Please try to provide a rational response this time. Stop to think before you write.
To the extent that Israel is Jewish and democratic simultaneously, it is firmly in the tradition of western democracies.
To the extent that it unduly emphasizes Jewish and diminishes democracy, then it is outside the tradition of western democracies.
Currently, Israel is still firmly in the tradition of western democracy, emphasizing one-person one-vote to citizens, free press, free peaceable assembly, equal right before the judiciary (legal if not perfectly in application), continuing parliamentary representation, continuity of law and governance.
Lots of compellingly dominant features of democracy.
National AND democratic. A good combination.
“To the extent that Israel is Jewish and democratic simultaneously, it is firmly in the tradition of western democracies.”
You keep saying this, and you keep getting told why it isn’t so, and you keep ingnoring the lessons. You are a really slow learner.
I will explain yet again.
“Israel is Jewish” means “Israel is a state for the benefit of an ethnic/relgious group”.
Britain is not a state for the benefit of an ethnic/relgious group.
Sweden is not a state for the benefit of an ethnic/relgious group.
Australia is not a state for the benefit of an ethnic/relgious group.
Each of them is, officially, a state for the benefit all its citizens.
So as soon as you say “Jewish and” you have placed Israel outside the Western democracies.
“Sweden is not a state for the benefit of an ethnic/religious group”
You must be joking. Sweden is for whose benefit then? The vast majority of Swedish citizens come from one ethnic group. They speak a specific language and have certain customs. And they strongly limit immigration to Sweden. So how can you say that Sweden is not for the benefit of this one group when as a matter of fact it is?
Saying that Sweden is for the benefit of Swedish citizens is exactly the same as saying that Israel is for the benefit of the Jews. Because Jews were geographically dispersed, they can receive citizenship in their country if they so wish.
Would you feel better if Israel at founding would have granted citizenship to all Jews in the world and their offspring thereafter? It was just not possible to do so. But the whole idea is that Israel was not only founded for the Jews in it, but for all the Jews in the world and for all practical purposes, when Israel was founded, every Jew gained an Israeli citizenship. Diaspora Jews have as much right to Israel as I have.
The law of return should have been written differently. It should have said exactly what the founders of Israel meant: As we see all Jews and their close relations as citizens of Israel, we hereby grant all these people an Israeli citizenship. To accept this citizenship, all they need do is come to Israel and request it. To be clear, Jews are citizens of Israel at birth no matter where they are born. But to benefit from the actual consequences of that and in order not to force something on anybody, they have to claim the citizenship by coming at least once to Israel.
There is absolutely nothing undemocratic or racist about this. And that is how the Law of Return should be understood. Israel is for the benefit of all its citizens. All its citizens include all the Jews of the world because most Jews were not in Israel when it was founded.
Really? Rahm Emmanuel, Abe Foxman and Alan Dershowitz all benefit? Norman Finkelstein, Medea Benjamin and Rosanne Barr too? Emily Henochowitz? How about Iranian Jews?
So all Jews are agents of Israel now?
“So how can you say that Sweden is not for the benefit of this one group when as a matter of fact it is?”
Because the state does not discriminate between the members of the majority group and the members of the minority group. All Swedish citizens are deemed equal under the law.
“And they strongly limit immigration to Sweden.”
But the limits are not based on ethnicity.
“Saying that Sweden is for the benefit of Swedish citizens is exactly the same as saying that Israel is for the benefit of the Jews.”
No it isn’t. Saying that Sweden is for the benefit of Swedish citizens would be the same as saying that Israel is for the benefit of Israeli citizens.
There are plenty of Israeli citizens who are not Jews, and there are plenty of Jews who are not Israeli citizens.
Sweden does not claim that all people of Swedish ancestry are Swedish citizens.
“So all Jews are agents of Israel now?”
Sure they are. The guy down the street from me, an Australian citizen, born and brought up in Australia, whose parents are Australian citizens, born and brought up in Australia, and who have lived here all their lives, is some sort of foreigner because he is a Jew.
And they call me an anti-Semite!
RoHa,
You are misunderstanding on purpose. Are people with dual passports foreigners? Not at all. All Jews are citizens of Israel for the state of Israel. You just do not want to accept this fact. Any Jew is a citizen of Israel. To get this “notarized” all a Jew has to do is come to Israel once.
If just before becoming independent, some Swedish people would have been exiled and many of them would not have been physically in Sweden at its independence, you can be sure that Sweden would have granted them citizenship anyway.
RoHa isn’t misunderstanding, he’s just not a racist fool shooting himself in the foot with his own arguments.
Let’s talk about the Nakba, and how Sweden is *not* like Israel at all.
If just before becoming independent, some [Israeli] people would have been exiled and many of them would not have been physically in [Israel] at its independence, you can be sure that [Israel] would have granted them citizenship anyway.
And there is your silly argument in tatters.
Many of the 3/4 million Palestinians ethnically cleansed in 1948 and 1949 came from within Israel’s declared borders of 1948 (those of UN181). They are by right Israelis. They were ethnically cleansed and denied their rights as citizens specifically and exactly because they weren’t jewish.
Slice and dice it any way you like, but zionism as practiced *is* racism, and going the way of the dinosaurs pretty damn fast.
“Are people with dual passports foreigners?”
No. But you are saying that all Jews belong to Israel whether they want to or not. A foreign country is claiming that some Australian citizens, who have never had anything to do with the foreign country , actually belong to that country.
“Any Jew is a citizen of Israel.”
This is not recognized by Australia. If it were, there would be no Jews in the Australian Federal Parliament, since the law requires that MP be of Australian nationality only.
“If just before becoming independent, some Swedish people
would havehad been exiled and many of themwouldwere nothave beenphysically in Sweden at its independence, you can be sure that Sweden would have granted them citizenship anyway.”Technically, Sweden has always been independent, but we can regard the break-up of the Kalmar Union and the ascension of Gustav Vasa to the throne as a sort of independence day. And I have no idea what arrangements they made for Swedes who were out of the country at the time, but the arrangements of 1532 are probably not the best guide for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
If they were the same as those of modern Sweden, they would only have granted citizenship to people whose parents were already Swedish citizens. Sweden does not regard people who are citizens of other countries as Swedish citizens unless they also formally hold Swedish citizenship as well. (Dual citizenship is only recent in Sweden.) Scandinavian citizens can gain Swedish citizenship fairly easily, and no distinction is made between Finnish-speaking Finns and Swedish-speaking Finns.
When Israel was formed, the majority of those Jews who lived outside Israel had other citizenships. They were not in exile, but living in their own countries.
Zionism’s hypocritical founding father, Theodor Herzl, advocated replacing Arabs with Jews in Palestine. The Arabs living there were/are Arabized decedents of the population who’ve lived there for thousands of years. Palestine was Arabized for over 1,400 years. That means ethnic cleansing is a part of Zionism. You CANNOT say it isn’t racist when ethnic cleansing is clearly racism.
Sure the guy also said that they should be religiously and culturally tolerant. Sure he said that non-Jews could co-exist in the state. Sure he denounced a rival fascist party that intended to make Jews into higher class citizens. But only after replacing as many Arabs as possible:
“Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly”
Yeah he said that. And it happened. Zionism is racism no matter how you try to spin it and no matter what your personal interpretation of it is. You cannot live your life being offended by the truth. Denying it does not make it go away.
“how does the urge for a home space for self-governance equate to racism,”
When the proposed self-governance is the self-governance of an ethnic group, it is automatically racist, since it is discriminating between people on the grounds of ethnicity.
“When the proposed self-governance is the self-governance of an ethnic group, it is automatically racist, since it is discriminating between people on the grounds of ethnicity.”
Of course this is not true. It may discriminate or it may not. If the Jewish state would have been formed in Antartica, would it be racist according to you? If so why?
Once you concede this point, we can move forward.
“If the Jewish state would have been formed in Antartica, would it be racist according to you?”
English lesson for you. Do not put “would have” in the “if” clause. Whenever you feel the urge to do so, replace it with “had” Your question should be
“If the Jewish state had been formed in Antartica, would it be racist according to you?”
And the answer, of course, is “yes”. Even there is no-one to practice the racism against, the concept of self-governance of an ethnic group is still a racist concept, since it excludes people of other ethnicities.
So a group that does not practice racism is racist because it might have practiced racism. So racism is determined by thoughts and not by actions. Wow, you are really out there. So thinking about murdering someone someone is just like murdering him.
So a group that does not practice racism is racist because it might have practiced racism. So racism is determined by thoughts and not by actions.
C’mon, eee, don’t pay dumb. RoHa refers to a system, and a system can have characteristics even as it remains inactive. For example, Canada could put a law into place which forbids entry to jews. Would such a law be racist? Even if no jews were to “test” the law?
Which begs the question: If it is ok to deny citizenship to non-jews (as you clearly claim), then surely it is ok in your mind for other coutries to explicitly deny citizenship to jews — yes? Please clarify. -N49.
The law in Israel is simple, all Jews are Israeli citizens. That is not a racist law. That is the meaning of a Jewish state. Israel was founded not as the country of the Jews that were there in 1948, but as a country for ALL the Jews in the world. Nothing racist about that. That is how national states work.
>> N49: C’mon, eee, don’t p[l]ay dumb.
He’s not playing.
no that is not how ‘nation states’ work (the US is a nation state). that is how the ethnic national state of israel works. big dif.
“Israel was founded not as the country of the Jews that were there in 1948, but as a country for ALL the Jews in the world. Nothing racist about that.”
A country is founded for ALL the members of a particular ethnic group, and you say it isn’t racist?
“Whitia was founded not as the country of the whites that were there in 2015, but as a country for ALL the white folk in the world. Nothing racist about that.”
If you cannot see the fundamental difference between “whitia” and Israel you are just blind. Founding a state for All the Swedes or Hungarians in the world is not racist. In fact, that is how these states were founded, the only difference with Israel being that most Hungarians and Swedes were in the geographical area of their countries when the countries were founded. Most Jews were not in Israel and herein lies the difference. But is it racism? Of course not.
“Founding a state for All the Swedes or Hungarians in the world is not racist.”
Insofar as that founding excludes other ethnicities, it is racist.
“In fact, that is how these states were founded,”
So you want to adhere to the political standards of princes of the Dark Ages?
“the only difference with Israel being that most Hungarians and Swedes were in the geographical area of their countries when the countries were founded.”
And that is a vital difference. Those countries were founded on the territory where the people already lived.
“Most Jews were not in Israel ”
Exactly. They had to leave their own countries, go to Palestine, and push out the people who lived there. That is racism in action.
Incidentally, most whites are not in Whitia, either.
Instead of the panel being an opening to further dialogue, I cannot envision a similar panel in the future, and I see little interest on any of the panelists’ part in continuing a dialogue. Perhaps our time and energy is better spent reaching out to people who aren’t as familiar with the issue.
i would not be so quick to make this judgement. the video of this event could travel far and wide and be shown on local networks around the country.
when you say “people who aren’t as familiar with the issue” i assume you primarily mean non jews or non arab/muslim. i tend to agree and think the time has come to have a national conversation. thanks for your report and i look forward to watching the video.
You can lead a horse to water Sylvia, but you can’t make him drink.
Sylvia, thank you for your very comprehensive account of the gathering. I think your conclusions are valid. I am not Jewish, but attend JVP events and participate at their vigil in Chicago. I am also a supporter of the SJP group at a local university and attend their events as well. It’s my wish to see more WASPs (my P has lapsed) like me get involved because all Americans, not just those who are Jewish, should be outraged at the claim that modern Israel is almost another state and that Israel is an asset to us.
My sister, who converted to Judaism decades ago, absolutely refused to attend a meeting with me when I challenged her to meet an Arab in person, a group about which she has rigid views but no member of which she has ever known. She, like your father, is cemented into position. Having sent her kids on Birthright trips long ago, I wonder how in the world she could alter her outlook even if truth should meet her face to face.
I also find it difficult to believe that Americans will be budged. There is too much entrenched opinion allied with indifference. What gives me encouragement, however, is the wealth of information on the Net. The case is made by all the videos, interviews, blogs like Mondoweiss, that are always there for anyone who will be bold enough to entertain a doubt. All it takes is a tiny bit of curiosity to take a look and the whole castle of preconceptions can crumble – as it did for me.
I wonder how in the world she could alter her outlook even if truth should meet her face to face
Even face to face, she won’t see it unless she chooses to do so. The truth hides in plain sight. That goes for everything that dictates our daily lives. Some acknowledge the truth behind one thing like I/P yet refuse to believe other truths like the existence of a global criminal central banking cabal headed by a few intermarried families.
Even here the Hasbarists made a fuss about Steve Jobs being half Arab, denying his Arabness because he was only genetically Arab and not by culture. Double standards applied because they have iPhones and can’t come to grips with it.
A friend once told me they were at a work party and a coworker unknowingly conversing with an Arab expressed their racism toward Arabs. People are bigots. They don’t realize we are more alike than not or that not all Muslims are Arabs (only 1/5) and Iranians are not Arabs.
Americans can be budged but it has to come through the proper channels.. TV and the MSM. The net is quite a bottomless rabbit hole. It only takes that tiny bit of curiosity. Once you encounter the hateful Hasbarists, there is no going back.
since resources are typically scarce when you are doing good, it is better to spend them on enlightening those unfamiliar with the issue instead of those blindly or sinisterly entrenched in their opinion! still I liked the give and take comments by the commentators..it shows lots of knowledge by those answering Mr Witty and that’s a testament to this blog’s savvy intellectual crowd.
Also the brand Mr Witty represents (knowingly or unknowingly) is a brand of left that has served a purpose since the establishment of Israel…getting the USSR to recognize Israel…and support from the soviet block initially selling Israel as a socialist state…and for the past couple of decades it has served Israel well to give it this “progressive” side as if there is a genuine national debate or conversation in Israel between right and left…there is NOT! there are a few good leftists who care like leah Tsomel, Shlomeet Aloni Yossi Sareed and Ya’el Dayan. Unfortunately their role was hardly influential at all and there are those who dress like leftists to do some role playing and give Israel a “diversity in opinion” beautification “lipstick on a pig” kinda of thing like Barack…Perez, Livni and perhaps Mr Witty, while they only care about eating the entire cake.
Richard Witty,
Is this an accurate description of your beliefs?
1. You support ethnic and religious nationalism in Israel because doing so is in your self-interest.
2. You oppose ethnic and religious nationalism in the United States, Europe and the rest of the Diaspora because doing so in your self-interest.
True or false?
Two times not accepted?
“1. You support ethnic and religious nationalism in Israel because doing so is in your self-interest.
2. You oppose ethnic and religious nationalism in the United States, Europe and the rest of the Diaspora because doing so in your self-interest.
True or false?”
False.
Witty,
Regarding your one-word response, “false.”
Either you oppose ethnic and religious nationalism in Israel or you support it in the United States and Western Europe.
Which is it?
Do you think that Israel should be a modern Western democratic state that provides equal rights, privileges, status and opportunities to all its citizens from all ethnic and religious backgrounds or not?
Or do you instead believe that white Christian nationalists should control the United States and Western Europe and discriminate against (or even ethnically cleanse) non-white Christians (including Jews)?
sean, witty is never going to admit he is a hypocrite. obviously he doesn’t support ethnic nationalism in the US and supports it in israel. he specializes in making pretzel logic and nonsensical sentences to evade logic and dominate threads. just ignore him. he’s so caught up in his agenda he copies your entire text so he can write ‘false’ under it. thrives off hearing himself talk.
If he is in a state of denial there would be no contradiction at all.
Gideon Levy in the Intifada
DC: If somebody was to call you a moderate Zionist would you have any objections?
GL: The moderate Zionists are like the Zionist left in Israel, which I can’t stand. Meretz and Peace Now, who are not ready, for example, to open the “1948 file” and to understand that until we solve this, nothing will be solved. Those are the moderate Zionists. In this case, I prefer the right-wingers.
DC: The right-wingers are more honest?
GL: Exactly.
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
It’s not that the right-wingers are more honest. It is that the the left-wing Zionists are in a state of denial. A state of denial is where you lie to yourself to maintain two mutually contradictory views. Pointing out those contradictions won’t do any good. They have already been rationalized away. Its kind of like “la-la-la I can’t hear you.” Working some people though a state of denial can be done. It isn’t happening here, and can’t happen here. Among other things it is a far too threatening place. At the end of it who knows how they will solve the contradiction with the caveat that there is strong pressure to side against those that threaten you.
annie,
I am making an earnest effort here to understand Witty’s thought processes — to get to the bottom of what strikes me as a psychological disorder. I understand that trying to get a handle on his views on ethnic and religious nationalism, which make absolutely no sense from a rational standpoint, is like trying to pick up mercury. :)
I keep hoping that Witty in these exchanges might experience a sudden moment of satori or enlightenment in which his own self-contradictions become apparent to him.
Barring that blessed event, I must confess that I am fascinated by the methods he uses to evade the truth and bamboozle himself. Witty is not a unique case: most pro-Israel activists are bedeviled by the same cognitive impairment and conceptual self-contradictions. They bend and twist reality to suit their self-interest and primal emotional needs. They can easily convince themselves that anything they need to believe is true, that makes them feel good, is true.
It strikes me that this pattern of denial of obvious facts and simple logic reflects not only cognitive dysfunction but lack of emotional empathy for others, which again gets one into the realm of well-known psychological disorders. There is something vaguely sociopathic about the behavior. And the irrationality is presented with a studied demeanor of pretend reasonableness and civility. On some level, the entire phenomenon is comical — Larry David could have fun with it and dissect it from multiple angles.
Media today is like media 2000 years ago. It did not report a rabbi who disagreed with the Jerusalem sect in arms with the empire of the day.
His disciples wrote that most Jews liked his take on Torah but the temple sect in cahoots with the empire shushed him. Our only hope is that thinking Jews will confront the temple sect today.
“Perhaps our time and energy is better spent reaching out to people who aren’t as familiar with the issue.”
What would get attention is a panel of zionist Jews debating anti zionist non Jews. Those like eee vr those like me. Now that would set off some sparks.
“What would get attention is a panel of zionist Jews debating anti zionist non Jews. Those like eee vr those like me. Now that would set off some sparks.”
More lucid sparks between Non-nationalist Jews and temple-sect national zionists. Remember the story about the Jews who followed a rabbi, or school of rabbis, who disagreed with the temple-sect using the empire of the day to bring Moschiach type “peace” —Pax Romana? Think how cool(militarily) the world would be if the US agreed to give Nationalist Jews part of Florida, Texas, Mississippi if they will leave Palestine to Palestinians.