Trending Topics:

Israel as a perversion of Judaism and the modern nation-state

Middle East
on 89 Comments

In Sovereign Jews: Israel, Zionism, and Judaism, Yaacov Yadgar explores the ways in which Zionist thought and Israel as a state cope with Jewish traditions that preceded them. Jewish sovereignty shapes Jewish identity in Israel, with profound implications for non-Jews in Israel, and for the identity of Jews in Israel and the Diaspora.

Jewish Identity Pre-Religion

“Religion”—as something internal and private—is a concept that emerged during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, along with the “nation state” and the “secular,” says Yadgar. (For a bit more on this, see my previous post here). During most of Jewish existence, Judaism was public and political, not religious and private in the modern sense.

When we think of the sacrificial cult of the Israelites centered on the temple in Eretz Yisrael, we see a practice that was public, communal, and political. During the rise of Ashkenaz (500 – 1,000 CE), says Norman Cantor, we see a Jewish community that grew wealthy and powerful and that mixed peoplehood, observance of Jewish law, and politics. For 500 years, Jews had a virtual monopoly on banking and credit in Western Europe. Jews became the great merchant traders and financiers of the early Middle Ages. This Jewish community was ruled by a narrow, capitalist-rabbinic elite, says Cantor. Wealthy banking and merchant families intermarried with prestigious rabbinic families, and together this elite imposed Jewish law on the Jewish community. What was the identity of these early Middle Age Ashkenaz Jews? They looked to their local community as their polity, they kept (and were kept) separate from surrounding Christendom, and they were led by a capitalist-rabbinic elite. At the same time, they must have felt connected to other, similar communities around Western Europe, and around the Mediterranean basin, all observing the same Jewish law (halakha), and linked through a vast international network of trade and rabbinic regulation. Judaism in the Middle Ages was public and political, not a matter of individual, private faith.

The public, political, and communal quality of Judaism only strengthened as Jews lost their monopoly in finance and banking in the 11th century and Jewish fortunes declined in a great upsurge of Christian anti-Semitism. Jews were expelled from Britain in 1290 and not allowed to return until 1657; they were expelled from France in 1306; from Spain and Portugal in 1492.

And as Jews moved to Germany and then to the eastern lands of Poland, Lithuania, and Galicia, Yiddish became their common language. The isolation and separation from surrounding Christian communities, as well as the observance of Jewish law, intensified. The bond of peoplehood was strengthened.

In the Talmud (Ketubot 100b-111a), says Yadgar, the rabbis relate that, after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, God commanded His people to accept life in exile and to obediently submit to living under foreign sovereignty. The absence of sovereignty became a cornerstone of Jewish political thought. This exilic rabbinic tradition highlighted Jewish law as the foundation of Jewish identity: law, which governs every aspect of the individual’s and the community’s life.

Throughout the Middle Ages this communal, political-but-not-sovereign, identity based on observance of halakha, and an increasingly shared Yiddish language and culture, served as the collective Jewish identity.

The Challenge of the Enlightenment

Beginning in the 12th and 13th centuries, Western Europe saw a great revival of Aristotelian philosophy and science that eventually flowered into the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. A century of religious wars sparked by the Reformation ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, ushering in the modern nation state and the idea of territorial sovereignty.

The concept of the modern European nation-state, “beyond asserting the state’s monopoly over the use of violence and its status above the law,” says Yadgar, strives to create and preserve “an absolute identification between sovereignty, territory, and identity.” People living within the borders of the state became citizens, and their identity became wrapped up with the state.

In order to accomplish this blending of sovereignty, territory and identity, the state was made secular and the church subordinate to the state. Christianity was turned into a “religion:” something private and internal, an impulse separate and distinct from the secular pursuits of politics and economics. The essence of this religion is belief. It allowed people to be Catholics or Protestants (and by now Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccan witches, or atheists) and yet be loyal Frenchmen, Englishwomen, Germans or Americans at the same time.

Jewish identity, based on its cornerstone of halakha, and loyalty to tribe governed by a capitalist-rabbinic elite, was not readily adaptable to this modern nation state with its trinity of sovereignty, territory, and identity.

Turning Judaism into a Religion

The German haskala (or enlightenment), says Yadgar, sought to resolve this tension between adherence to Jewish law and loyalty to the nation state by reconstructing Judaism as an apolitical private, personal matter that does not touch upon the public sphere. Moses Mendelssohn re-cast Jewish law as a religion. The state, he argued, is by definition the party that deals with power and violence, while religion, in the true sense of the term, does not. Since Judaism does not deal with power, said Mendelssohn, it does not inhibit loyalty to the state. By turning Judaism into a religion, Mendelssohn paved the way for the successful assimilation of Jews into the non-Jewish, modern, secular European nation-states.

The Jewish Reform movement in Germany, and later in the United States, notes Yadgar, resolved any tension between commitment to Jewish law and commitment to the secular nation state by giving up, in practical terms, on Jewish law. Staunchly loyal to the nation state, the Reform movement reinterpreted Judaism as a spiritual achievement whose essence is the apolitical, the religious.

Orthodoxy was a reaction. Nevertheless, says Yadgar, Orthodoxy accepts Mendelssohn’s basic premise that Judaism is a religion that in no way conflicts with the modern nation state. Orthodoxy emphasizes Judaism’s all-encompassing nature; nevertheless, it also accepts that Judaism, and especially Jewish law, are by definition not political. Orthodoxy agrees with Mendelssohn that Jewish religion is not coercive and concerns only the heart and mind.

But Orthodoxy, unlike Reform, is anti-assimilation. Its self-imposed sense of separation from the larger world of Jewish identities—not to mention the secular world—is based on a distinctly Christian, Western conceptual framework, one constituted on notions of ‘belief’, ‘spirituality’, and a distinction between ‘theology’ and ‘politics.’ “Orthodoxy is in a certain sense the most modern of modern Judaisms in viewing itself as a religion on the German Protestant model,” claims Yadgar (citing Batnitzki).

Zionism as the New Judaism

If the Haskala took Jewish identity and turned it into a religion in order to assimilate into modern European nation states, Zionism took this religion and turned it into a tool of the (modern) nation state of the Jews.

Consider this contention by Shlomo Avineri and see if it resonates:

“Zionism … substituted a secular self-identity of the Jews as a nation for the traditional and Orthodox self-identity in religious terms. Zionism is not just a reaction of people to persecution. It is a quest for self-determination and liberation under the modern conditions of secularization and liberalism.”

We take for granted, says Yadgar, that Zionism is a revolution in Jewish identity. The early Zionists who settled the land and built Israel were militantly secular. Secularism, in their view, was a natural development of the human race toward reason, rationality, and enlightenment. But Zionism was their new religion.

And indeed, as we look around, we see that most Jews in the United States perceive their Judaism more as a matter of culture and ancestry than religion; two-thirds say it is not necessary to believe in God to be Jewish; a strong minority doesn’t believe in God; and most do not observe halakha in any meaningful sense. See Pew (2013). Israeli Jews are not significantly different (Pew 2016). This undermines any notion of a shared observance of a God-given Jewish law as the touchstone of Jewish identity. Israel, and the holocaust as its justification, has become the new touchstone of Judaism.

With secularization, says Yadgar, Jewish identity lost its normative and public standing. Observance of law and kehilla (Jewish Community), which served as the normative focus of Jewish existence, could no longer do so post-Emancipation and the Haskala. Once Jews were liberated, at least in part, from the traditional religious framework in matters of practice [mitzvoth and belief], they were compelled to instill new public meaning in their being.

Zionism provided such meaning by building a secular alternative to Jewish collectivity in the form of the Jewish nation-state. As Avineri put it:

“The state of Israel put the public, normative dimension back into Jewish life. Without this having ever been defined, and maybe it cannot be defined, it can be said that to be Jewish means—more than anything else—feeling attachment to the State of Israel.”

Today, noted Avineri, there is not one idea or one institution “around which all Jewish people can and do unite, except Israel.” The state emerges at the very heart of the Jewish people’s existence, notes Yadgar, as the only agent instilling a meaningful content into Jewish collectivity, and enabling Jews to remain a cohesive “people.” Jewish unity emerges as dependent upon the State of Israel. But it’s a perversion of Judaism.

Not Just a Secular State: Abandoning the Trinity of Sovereignty, Territory, and Identity

In building the state of Israel, Zionism has deviated from the Enlightenment trinity of sovereignty, territory, and identity: in Israel sovereignty and territory are not co-extensive with identity.

The Israeli state has forged a Jewish national identity, not an Israeli national identity. It has done so, in part, by maintaining a population registry that records “Jewish” as a “nationality.” The Israeli Supreme Court has taken up the challenge of Jewish citizens who desired to have their nationality listed as “Israeli,” and the court concluded that there is no such thing as an “Israeli nation.” In other words, Israel self-identifies as the state of Jews, not of Israelis. The dominance of the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel, suggests Yadgar, is intimately linked with this Zionist project. The state asserts its sovereignty over all Israelis, and over the territory, but only some Israelis (Jews) are true nationals of this state.

The registry, says Yadgar, makes the ideological point that Judaism is not just a religion, but primarily a nationality. This Jewish nationality is separate from, and superior to, “religious” Jewish belonging. The registry allows the state to distinguish Jews from non-Jews, and to put in practice a preference of the former over the latter. It leaves 20% of non-Jewish Israeli citizens—not to mention 4.3 million Palestinians living under occupation—alienated from the national character of the state.

The state maintains its Jewish identity by using symbols, national holidays, Shabbat, education, advertising, media, and the army as socializing agents. Palestinians are systematically excluded from this socialization. Orthodox rabbinic control over life cycle events, kosher laws, immigration, and conversion, further helps to preclude the formation of a national identity for non-Jews.

The degree to which the state has succeeded with its socialization is evident in the Pew polling. The Pew study of Israeli Jews (3/16) reveals that 79 percent of Israeli Jews say Jews deserve preferential treatment in Israel. Israeli Jews universally report (97%) they would be uncomfortable if their child married an Arab Palestinian citizen of Israel. Nearly half (48%) “strongly agree” that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel. These views are not unfortunate accidents of transitory right wing politics. They reflect the degree to which Israel has strayed from the Enlightenment trinity of sovereignty, territory, and identity.

It’s a perversion of the modern nation state.

 

Statist Judaism and Statist Jews

A corollary of the state maintaining a Jewish character, notes Yadgar, is that Jews who are essentially liberated from the authority of Jewish tradition, who are comfortably ignorant of that tradition, and indifferent towards it, are nevertheless able to maintain a strong Jewish identity through an allegiance to Israel as “the state of the Jews.” By raising high the flag of nationalism, secular Jews can feel themselves part of the people, suggested Ahad Ha’am. This holds true for Israeli Jews as well as Diaspora Jews, and it may explain why Israel-focused non-profit groups are the largest recipients of American Jewish philanthropy.

The state of Israel, suggests Yadgar, adopted a national theology based on an ethnic myth (type-J blood and ancestry) as a substitute for the traditional mythology of Jewish peoplehood based on a covenant with God. It’s no accident that Richard Spencer—a spokesperson for the American alt-Right movement—has looked with admiration on Israel’s example.

The prominent Israeli essayist and novelist, A.B. Yehoshua has said that “a Zionist is a person who accepts the principle that the State of Israel does not belong only to its citizens, but to the Jewish people in its entirety.” You don’t have to observe mitzvoth, or believe in God, or know anything about the Jewish tradition to belong to this Zionist Judaism. Under the extraordinarily broad Law of Return, you too can be granted citizenship upon landing in Israel if you are a Jew (born of a Jewish mother) or are the child or grandchild of a Jew, or the spouse of any of these. Come, “because you are only half a Jew in diaspora,” said Yehoshua, and upon arrival, the state will provide the content of your Judaism on a silver platter. You don’t need to lift a finger.

The state, by maintaining an Orthodox-officiated Jewish character, serves the same role as the temple priests of old: Jews bring their sacrifices to the temple priests, and they take care of the rest. But in the case of the modern state of Israel, the sacrifices brought by otherwise perfectly liberal Jews are the political rights, civil rights, and human rights of the Palestinians who are denied an equal stake in this state, and who are denied a national identity in this state.

This post first appeared on Roland Nikles’s blog earlier this month. 

 

About Roland Nikles

Roland Nikles is a Bay Area writer and attorney. He blogs here: rolandnikles.blogspot.com. And you can follow him on twitter @RolandNikles

Other posts by .


Posted In:

89 Responses

  1. Donald Johnson
    January 20, 2018, 11:57 am

    Fascinating post. Thanks for writing it.

  2. JLewisDickerson
    January 20, 2018, 12:08 pm

    Very interesting! Thanks.

  3. Keith
    January 20, 2018, 5:47 pm

    ROLAND NIKLES- “Moses Mendelssohn re-cast Jewish law as a religion.”

    The notion that Judaism pre-enlightenment was not a religion and only became one with the separation of church and state is bizarre. Surely we can agree that religion is an ideology with a godhead which deals primarily with the metaphysical world. To separate church and state doesn’t impact scripture. It primarily impacts religion as the legitimizing ideology of the ruling elites. Defining religion as “private” beliefs and practices not “public” beliefs and practices is strange, to say the least.

    ROLAND NIKLES- “In order to accomplish this blending of sovereignty, territory and identity, the state was made secular and the church subordinate to the state.”

    Is it possible to distort history this flagrantly? The early nation-states were all monarchies justified by divine right. The church was subordinate, yes, nonetheless it was a powerful force in medieval society, its role was as the justifier of the power structure. These medieval monarchies were not secular. The separation of church and state occurred with the rise of capitalism. During the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment, European culture was radically transformed to accommodate the changed circumstances. Old social mythology replaced with new social mythology necessary to facilitate social control by a new group of elites. Capitalist businessmen and financiers gradually wrested control of European society from the nobility and church. The new mythology/culture justified and acculturated the citizenry to the new institutions of social power and control.

    ROLAND NIKLES- ” “Orthodoxy is in a certain sense the most modern of modern Judaisms in viewing itself as a religion on the German Protestant model,” claims Yadgar (citing Batnitzki).”

    According to Israel Shahak, Orthodoxy is, along with Zionism, a successor to historical Judaism, hardly the most modern Judaism. It was a retrograde reaction to modernity and the enlightenment. Orthodoxy similar to German Protestantism? Never heard that before.

    ROLAND NIKLES- ” The early Zionists who settled the land and built Israel were militantly secular. Secularism, in their view, was a natural development of the human race toward reason, rationality, and enlightenment.”

    Atheists who right from the get go used biblical references to justify Zionism claiming a God-given title deed to the land as they thumped the Bible/Torah/Talmud. And the very notion that “reason, rationality, and enlightement” motivated these Blood and Soil Zionists is not based upon evidence. Have you read the racist ravings of some of these early Zionists such as Jabotinsky? Nowadays, there seems to be a significant symbiosis between Israeli nationalism and the various strands of Judaism in the US and Israel.

    ROLAND NIKLES- ” Israel, and the holocaust as its justification, has become the new touchstone of Judaism.”

    Indeed it has. Likewise, Israel is increasingly relying upon Judaism as a legitimizing ideology. Together, this is the symbiosis I referred to.

    • Donald Johnson
      January 20, 2018, 9:22 pm

      I think you are misreading him at certain points. For instance, he defines “ religion” in an idiosyncratic way by everyday standards, as private belief rather than a system that dominates the entire society. You see that in this passage—

      “In order to accomplish this blending of sovereignty, territory and identity, the state was made secular and the church subordinate to the state. Christianity was turned into a “religion:” something private and internal, an impulse separate and distinct from the secular pursuits of politics and economics. The essence of this religion is belief. It allowed people to be Catholics or Protestants (and by now Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccan witches, or atheists) and yet be loyal Frenchmen, Englishwomen, Germans or Americans at the same time.”

      On separation of church and state, he is talking about the period after the Thirty Years War and not the Middle Ages.

      • Keith
        January 21, 2018, 12:36 am

        DONALD JOHNSON- “I think you are misreading him at certain points. For instance, he defines “ religion” in an idiosyncratic way by everyday standards, as private belief rather than a system that dominates the entire society.”

        Yes, and he is wrong. Religion as a “private belief system rather than a system that dominates the entire society?” That is bullshit, pure and simple. Reality isn’t what he defines it to be, it is what it actually is. And for most of human history, there has been no separation of church and state. Religion was “a system which dominates the entire society.” You disagree? What the f**k was divine right all about? Seriously. Separation of church and state is a recent phenomenon. Yet, the notion that religion is a recent phenomenon caused by the separation of church and state is ludicrous. Reality is what it is, not what you define it to be. Come one Donald, you are better than that.

      • Donald Johnson
        January 21, 2018, 12:21 pm

        It’s semantics, Keith. By “ religion” he means the reduced role religion has in modern Western secular societies, excluding Israel. He states this very clearly. Several centuries ago one particular religion would permeate the society and adherents of minority religions would be on thin ice, if allowed to exist at all. He should use a different term if it is going to cause this sort of useless debate about word usage. But you are accusing him of denying reality when you and he and I all agree on the history.

        It’s a little weird how you assume I disagree with you on the questions you ask— the whole point of the quote I provided from the post was precisely that religion used to dominate society and that in recent centuries separation of church and state became the ideal for many, as a reaction to the Thirty Years War. Israel is a society where one religion dominates.

        I think this is turning into one of those arguments where people agree very loudly at the top of their lungs.

  4. johneill
    January 21, 2018, 12:48 am

    “a Zionist is a person who accepts the principle that the State of Israel does not belong only to its citizens, but to the Jewish people in its entirety.” this always confuses me. if israel belongs to the jewish people ‘in its entirety’, why aren’t jews abroad allowed to cast ballots in israeli elections? how can the jewish state represent judaism without universal jewish sufferage?

    • Naftush
      January 21, 2018, 9:02 am

      It’s nationhood vs. citizenship. Universal Jewish nationhood that confers the right to citizenship if the individual takes it up, Israeli citizenship that confers citizen rights including suffrage.

      • John O
        January 21, 2018, 12:00 pm

        @Naftush

        The question was: why can’t Jews in every country of the world vote in Israeli elections.

        Your answer implies that if they take up Israeli citizenship, they can vote. Can they take up Israeli citizenship without emigrating to Israel?

      • Talkback
        January 21, 2018, 12:45 pm

        Naftush: It’s nationhood vs. citizenship.”

        A concept only known from Israel. At least after 1945. Before that Nazi Germany had the same concept.

        Naftush: “Universal Jewish nationhood that confers the right to citizenship if the individual takes it up, Israeli citizenship that confers citizen rights including suffrage.”

        Sure, and “Jewish nationhood” trumps Israeli citizenship, right? Fullbore Apartheid.

      • Naftush
        January 21, 2018, 2:01 pm

        Responses to John O and Talkback: No, Jews cannot obtain Israeli citizenship without immigrating, and those with Israeli citizenship forfeit the right to vote if they leave the country for a certain length of time. Talkback: that’s toxic waste in verbal form. Jews carried their nationhood from country to country for centuries until repatriation became possible. Nothing but nothing like Germany, let alone Nazi Germany.

      • Talkback
        January 21, 2018, 5:30 pm

        Naftush: “Talkback: that’s toxic waste in verbal form.”

        That’s hot air in verbal form.

        Naftush: “Jews carried their nationhood from country to country for centuries until repatriation became possible.”

        ROFL. There is no “repatriation” without an exile. And no Israeli historian has prove yet that there even was an exile.

        Naftush: “Nothing but nothing like Germany, let alone Nazi Germany.”

        Nazi Germany differentiated between nationals and citizens to privilige the former and discriminate the latter. Israel also differentiates between nationals (only Jews) and citizens. According to the Supreme Apartheid Court “Israeli” is not even a nationality, Isrelis are not a nation. Full bore Apartheid. Just answer the question if Israel’s land belongs to its citizens.

      • Misterioso
        January 22, 2018, 3:12 pm

        https://twitter.com/PressTV/status/955445819859185665

        “#Israeli security forces rush to eject Israeli #Arab lawmakers from parliament during speech by US VP Pence after they raise placards saying ‘#Quds is #Palestine’s capital. ‘”

  5. yourstruly
    January 21, 2018, 12:55 am

    “Not one idea nor one institution around which Jewish people can and do unite, except Israel{?}” If so, why not forego unity, given that its price is our having to permanently subjugate a native people? Surrendering one’s soul for unity, sorry, but that’s way too stiff a price. Best we remain dispersed, deeply engaged and well assimilated within the various wonderful societies that have taken us in.

    • Emory Riddle
      January 24, 2018, 6:41 pm

      “Jews carried their nationhood from country to country for centuries until repatriation became possible”. An excellent insight into the perversion of truth and logic due to Zionism. “Repatriation” to a land you, your grandparents, your great, great, great, grandparents, etc. never lived in. I honestly don’t know how they get people to buy this.

  6. Naftush
    January 21, 2018, 3:45 am

    Mr. Nikles slipped off the rails after several promising introductory paragraphs. Jewish nationhood in Israel traces directly to national elements of Jewish nationhood pre-Enlightenment. Other than territory, it’s all there: language, dress, even cuisine, *and* religion. To equate Israeli Jews with American Jews, the author cherry-picks the criteria and overlooks the one that matters: nationhood. Perhaps he’s blinded by the Western perception of Judaism as religion-only or ethnicity-only, but my conjecture is that he must see things this way to obtain his definition of Israel as, guess what, a perversion of the nation-state. Israel is instead the embodiment of the purpose of a nation-state: a protective structure for the nation, that is, an existent nation. So says Dubnow, bringing plenty of sociological (not “religious”) evidence. It would be edifying to know what other nation-states the author faults as perversions. It wouldn’t be another one of those faux Israel-only arguments, would it?

    • Donald Johnson
      January 21, 2018, 12:28 pm

      That’s an interesting criticism, but I am curious about the last whine. Do you mean that Israel is a typical example of settler colonialist nationalism, like the US, when the whites came with their notions of racial and cultural superiority and took the land from the Native Americans?

      • Naftush
        January 21, 2018, 2:12 pm

        Violent national successions are as old as Genesis. So as not to whine, I’ll put it straight: I suspect the author of creating a set of perversions that’s got one member only, Israel. Once you bring the US into it, you broaden the set to two. Well, I also suspect those whose sets accommodate only Israel and the U.S. Colonialist assaults on native peoples, verging or attaining genocide, were rife in South America, Africa, and Southern Asia. Jewish nationhood allows for one and only one homeland. Territorialism and Autonomism were tried and failed. Renunciation of Jewish nationhood, as in the Reform, succeeded in dividing Jewry but has not shown its ability to assure Jewish survival in the long term. I return to the point of departure: Israel is no settler-colonialist venture but a classic state construct that’s meant to protect a national population.

      • Donald Johnson
        January 21, 2018, 4:31 pm

        Actually, it is a settler colonialist venture and also a venture intended to preserve Jews. I can acknowledge the second point without endorsing the method. The best long term method for preserving Jews and all other minority groups is to move towards the liberal ideal of secular democracies with equal rights for all. The nationalist idea is understandable, especially with groups who are being oppressed, but it often tends to produce a new oppressor class when successful. That is what was bound to happen when you build a nation on land already inhabited by others.

        I am not sure the writer intends to say that Israel is some unique case of oppression. It has its unique features, but every case does. He is attempting to give the history of Judaism and its relationship to nationalism in a few paragraphs or rather, summarizing the content of a book which apparently attempts to do that. I am very far from being an expert in Jewish history so my opinion is worth almost nothing, but it sounded plausible to me. But admittedly that doesn’t mean much.

      • Talkback
        January 21, 2018, 5:21 pm

        Naftush: “Violent national successions are as old as Genesis.”

        Sure, but it’s forbidden after 1945. What’s next, Naftush? Genocides are as old as Genesis?

        Naftush: “Jewish nationhood allows for one and only one homeland.”

        According to who?

        Naftush: “Israel is no settler-colonialist venture but a classic state construct that’s meant to protect a national population.”

        ROFL. Israel is a 100% a settler-colonialist creation which doesn’t protect all of its citizens, but keeps millions expelled and denationalized. Even the term “national” is perverted and only refers to Jewish Israelis. Nazi Germany did the same and differentiated between nationals (volkish Germans) and citizens.

      • Mooser
        January 21, 2018, 7:18 pm

        “Naftush” did you know Jews the right to fly by flapping our arms? (to the extent we don’t interfere with civil aviation, of course) So do you! Every Jewish person has that right! Nobody can take that right away from us! I can even sell non-refundable tickets to see me do it. There’s only one problem. Do you know what it is?

      • Mooser
        January 21, 2018, 7:42 pm

        “and also a venture intended to preserve Jews.”

        No, you don’t know that. The Zionists say that. It is absurd.

      • Talkback
        January 22, 2018, 8:59 am

        Mooser: ““Naftush” did you know Jews the right to fly by flapping our arms? (to the extent we don’t interfere with civil aviation, of course).”

        What makes you say that? Everybody knows that the International Civil Aviation Organization is antisemitic and wants to deny the only Jewish people’s enternal right to fly by flapping with their arms. What the former would consider as interference is only a hateful Palestinian narrative and actually disputed. Your self hatred is obvious.

      • Mooser
        January 22, 2018, 12:29 pm

        “Everybody knows that the International Civil Aviation Organization is antisemitic and wants to deny the only Jewish people’s enternal right to fly by flapping with their arms”

        You got it in one, “Talkback”!

    • Emory Riddle
      January 24, 2018, 6:50 pm

      Wow. The twists and turns one must make to justify white Jews from Europe and Russia violently expelling native peoples of the Middle East and stealing their land. People “returning” to a land they never lived in. Atheists justifying this violent theft as God’s Will. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. And no better example than the gobbledygook Naftush subjects us to. Doubleplus Good.

  7. Mooser
    January 21, 2018, 12:23 pm

    .” Jewish nationhood in Israel traces directly to national elements of Jewish nationhood pre-Enlightenment. Other than territory, it’s all there: language, dress, even cuisine, *and* religion.”

    “Maybe it has to do with the fact that Jews couldn’t have sex for nearly half the time…”

    • Naftush
      January 21, 2018, 2:13 pm

      Y’know what? Spot on. A Jewish national characteristic I hadn’t thought of: conjugal relations. Strengthens my argument.

      • Mooser
        January 21, 2018, 4:28 pm

        “A Jewish national characteristic I hadn’t thought of: conjugal relations”

        Exactly! That’s why our demographics are so bad.

        And as far as the sections of the Jewish people who are reproducing rapidly, are they cheating, to gain an advantage over Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews who scrupulously observe (like Mikhael!) the “the laws of “family purity”?

        And how’s the divorce and out-marriage rates among Jews?

      • Mooser
        January 21, 2018, 7:22 pm

        “A Jewish national characteristic I hadn’t thought of: conjugal relations” “Naftush”

        “Naffila” I don’t know what your Rabbi told you, but non-Jews have them, too.

        So “Naftush”, I’m waiting. What is it about “conjugal relations” which distinguishes Jews? What’s the “national characteristic” in Jewish “conjugal relations” Please, spread yourself on this topic.

        And keep your eye on those Haredim in Israel, I think they’re way over “nearly half the time”.

  8. Yitzchak Goodman
    January 21, 2018, 1:42 pm

    In the Talmud (Ketubot 100b-111a), says Yadgar, the rabbis relate that, after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, God commanded His people to accept life in exile and to obediently submit to living under foreign sovereignty. The absence of sovereignty became a cornerstone of Jewish political thought. This exilic rabbinic tradition highlighted Jewish law as the foundation of Jewish identity: law, which governs every aspect of the individual’s and the community’s life.

    That should be Ketuvot 110b-111a. 100b to 111a is about ten daf! This is a reference to the “Three oaths,” and it exhibits a very Satmar sense of what it means. Is that the whole justification for the next sentence: “The absence of sovereignty became the cornerstone of Jewish political thought”? And why is emphasis on halacha something particularly associated with exile in the next sentence? There doesn’t seem to be any transition between one vague assertion and the next.

    • Mooser
      January 21, 2018, 7:27 pm

      “There doesn’t seem to be any transition between one vague assertion and the next.”

      Well, “Yitzak”, that’s how it goes. You will just have to determine which is more important, which may have more effect on us; our interpretations of ourselves as Jews, or how others perceive us?

    • gamal
      January 21, 2018, 10:59 pm

      ” is about ten daf!” no doubt full of double-sided blattitudes

      “and why” well never trust a person who wants to know the correct answer, in Religion we have no questions and if we have questions each one has infinite answers, worldly people shouldn’t mess with it, it will, like real life frustrate you, from M.K. Masuds Ikhitlaf al fuqaha

      “The earliest known book dedicated to ikhtilaf was written by
      Muhammad b. Nasr al-Marwazi (d. 905). Among the popular texts on
      the subject are the text by Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (d. 922) entitled
      Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha; the book by Abu Ja’far Ahmad b. Muhammad alTahawi
      (d. 933) …………….

      Ikhtilaf literature begins by recognising diversity as a natural
      phenomenon grounded in the teachings of the Qur’an. These works
      emphasise diversity as a divine blessing because humans differ in their
      levels of understanding and social settings. The early ikhtilaf books are
      mostly collections of differing opinions by the jurists. Later, the compilers
      developed theories to explain these differences”

  9. Maghlawatan
    January 21, 2018, 3:09 pm

    Judaism used to be about justice. Zionism turned it into land porn. And Zionism is the purest trauma so it is not rational. And nobody has the guts to stand up to the Zionists. The best lack conviction and the worst are genocidal.

  10. Citizen
    January 22, 2018, 11:19 am

    I wonder what Ahed Tamimi thinks when she hears the story of David & Goliath? Does she see Israel, surrounded by Arab states, or does she see herself & her family, village–surrounded by armed squatters and IDF soldiers?

    The US Indian Wars ended in late 19th Century. The 20th Century gave us two linked world wars, followed by ex post facto international legal principles via Nuremberg & Tokyo Trials, and Geneva IV. It seems, at Nuremberg, Goering was right after all (Might makes right), judging by US & Israel’s bevy of preemptive wars.

    The Nuremberg Trials ended in 1946; the Zionist terrorist militias did the Nakba in 1947-’48. The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention and abbreviated as GCIV, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. It was adopted in August 1949.

    • Yitzchak Goodman
      January 22, 2018, 11:15 pm

      I wonder what Ahed Tamimi thinks when she hears the story of David & Goliath?

      Does anybody remember this Mondoweiss post?

      ‘Palestine’ is an ancient name, for a land of many cultures –
      mondoweiss.net/2013/06/palestine-ancient-cultures/

      It states: “Another inscription, recording King Ramesses’ conflict with the Sea Peoples, is dated to around 1175. Here we first meet the ‘Peleset’, who must be the Philistines or Palestinians. ”

      According to that, wouldn’t Goliath be a Palestinian?

      • MHughes976
        January 23, 2018, 2:48 pm

        Thanks indeed, Yitzchak, for reading my 2013 essay, even sceptically! I must admit that you make a true point. Goliath (I’m not saying he was with conviction that he was a historical character) is certainly represented as a Palestinian. Several scholars have linked his name with Indo-E names from Lydia and Caria. ‘Alyattes; still seems to be the favourite, though it is disputed as all these things tend to be. It was quite a multicultural encounter, seeing that David was of Moabite descent, by some standards (Deuteronomy 23:3) not an Isrealite at all.

  11. Boris
    January 23, 2018, 2:38 pm

    Today, noted Avineri, there is not one idea or one institution “around which all Jewish people can and do unite, except Israel.”

    A former director of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum once wrote that Jews

    1. are united through their common history
    2. from that history they are realize their common vulnerability
    3. … and this teaches them the importance of Israel.

    Avineri seems to have bypassed 1 and 2.

    • eljay
      January 23, 2018, 3:25 pm

      || Boris:
      Today, noted Avineri, there is not one idea or one institution “around which all Jewish people can and do unite, except Israel.” … ||

      One would think that the only idea or institution around which people of a religion-based identity should unite is their religion. Zionists prefer to unite around a Golden Calf. (I wasn’t aware that “all Jewish people” are united around Israel.)

      || … A former director of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum once wrote that Jews

      1. are united through their common history
      2. from that history they are realize their common vulnerability
      3. … and this teaches them the importance of Israel. … ||

      So…the essence of sharing the religion-based identity of Jewish is “common vulnerability” and the lesson learned is that all people who share that Jewish identity must advocate, engage in, justify, support and/or defend the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality acts of injustice and immorality committed by Jews against non-Jews.

      • Boris
        January 23, 2018, 4:21 pm

        … religion-based identity …

        This entire article is that being Jewish is no longer based on any religion. Many Jews today are atheists.

        You are definitely stuck in your own world…

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2018, 4:54 pm

        “So…the essence of sharing the religion-based identity…/… committed by Jews against non-Jews.”

        “Boris” is simply trying to work out some magical reason why the Jews all over the world, and many in Israel, won’t see the failure of Zionism, and act appropriately. They will.

      • eljay
        January 23, 2018, 7:29 pm

        || Boris: … This entire article is that being Jewish is no longer based on any religion. … ||

        That doesn’t change the fact that Jewish is a religion-based identity.

        || … Many Jews today are atheists. … ||

        And many Jews are not.

        || … You are definitely stuck in your own world… ||

        Says the Jewish supremacist. Funny. :-)

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2018, 10:47 pm

        “This entire article is that being Jewish is no longer based on any religion”

        But you still won’t tell us what it is based on? Are we back to sending you pictures so you can tell us?

        How do we know whether Israel is a place for real Jews, or just a place for whoever the Zionists think might be useful?

      • Boris
        January 23, 2018, 11:24 pm

        Mooo, your membership is in your genes.

        Just like Native Americans define membership in their tribes based on percentage of American Indian blood in your veins, after the Holocaust Jews are forced to acknowledge that that’s how the world defines who they are.

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2018, 11:47 am

        , “after the Holocaust Jews are forced to acknowledge that that’s how the world defines who they are.”

        Ah, I see, you finally admit it is the world that has the power to define the Jews. But in return, we get rights to Palestine, and the right to get rid of the Palestinians? Such a deal.

        But you still haven’t told us what it is about blood which makes it Jewish? Remember, “Boris”, the human genome has been completely mapped.
        Which ones are the Jewish genes? They will have designations, what are they?

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2018, 11:55 am

        “Mooo, your membership is in your genes..”

        Sure, you bet. If there are “Jewish genes” I’m sure I’ve got plenty.

        But that membership can’t make me (or any other Jewish person outside Israel) pay taxes, or draft me, or order me around. Can’t even make me like Israel.
        So what good do Jewish genes do Zionism?

      • RoHa
        January 24, 2018, 6:05 pm

        “Which ones are the Jewish genes? They will have designations, what are they?”

        They are the ones with the Levi-Strauss label, aren’t they?

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2018, 7:40 pm

        “They are the ones with the Levi-Strauss label”

        “RoHa” send your formal wear to the cleaners. I see a Nobel prize coming your way. Brilliant!
        I was thinking they should look for genes that shrink, since so many Jews undergo analysis, but that proved a faulty indicator.

      • Marnie
        January 25, 2018, 12:12 am

        Boris January 13, 2018 at 8:53 am with 7 replies

        This is my last comment here, which sums everything up:

        Losers, you can’t face reality!
        ________________________________________
        Just can’t help yourself Boris? PUTZ.

    • Talkback
      January 23, 2018, 4:09 pm

      Boris: “2. from that history they are realize their common vulnerability
      3. … and this teaches them the importance of Israel.”

      Yes, so important that more then half of them choose to live “vulnerable” outside of this Apartheid Junta.

    • Keith
      January 23, 2018, 6:00 pm

      BORIS- “1. are united through their common history”

      Their common myth-history? There were no Jewish historians until about 300 years ago.

      BORIS- “2. from that history they are realize their common vulnerability”

      Discovered the benefits of gilded victimhood?

      BORIS- “3. … and this teaches them the importance of Israel.”

      The importance of Israel as the last remaining example of Blood and Soil nationalism? The importance of Israel as a unifier of the Tribe? A means to revive the economic function of Jews in medieval Europe? Zionism as a power-seeking ideology?

      • DaBakr
        January 24, 2018, 2:20 am

        All of the above.

        I think you might want to check your 300yrs. At least 2020.

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2018, 12:19 pm

        .” At least 2020.”

        So what? Does it give Israel the ability to compel any person outside of Israel to do anything?
        “DaBakr” nothing about our genes, religion, culture, you name it, compels Jews to be stupid, and go over the cliff with Israel.
        In fact, if necessary Zionism will be repudiated.

      • Keith
        January 24, 2018, 4:59 pm

        DABAKR- “I think you might want to check your 300yrs. At least 2020.”

        2020? Going to attempt to leapfrog over the Diaspora and land in antiquity on the head of Flavius Josephus? I am not going to debate whether this Roman-Hebrew historian, whose work was banned by the rabbinical authorities, qualifies as what nowadays defines a “Jew.” Instead, I’ll simply modify my comment to exclude antiquity. How about, “With the decline of Temple Judaism and throughout most of the period of Classical (Rabbinic) Judaism, there were no Jewish historians until about 300 years ago.” That better? A quote for you from a book I highly recommend, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” by Israel Shahak.

        “Classical Judaism had little interest in describing or explaining itself to the members of its own community, whether educated (in talmudic studies) or not. It is significant that the writing of Jewish history, even in the driest annalistic style, ceased completely from the time of Josephus Flavius (end of first century) until the Renaissance, when it was revived for a short time in Italy and in other countries where the Jews were under strong Italian influence. Characteristically, the rabbis feared Jewish even more than general history, and the first modern book on history published in Hebrew (in the 16th century) was entitled “History of the Kings of France and of the Ottoman Kings.” It was followed by some histories dealing only with the persecutions that Jews had been subjected to. The first book on Jewish history proper (dealing with ancient times) was promptly banned and suppressed by the highest rabbinical authorities, and did not reappear before the 19th century. The rabbinical authorities of east Europe furthermore decreed that all non-talmudic studies are to be forbidden, even when nothing specific could be found in them which merits anethema, because they encroach on the time that should be employed either studying the Talmud or making money – which should be used to subsidise talmudic scholars.” (p19, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” Israel Shahak)

    • RoHa
      January 23, 2018, 9:21 pm

      “Jews … are united through their common history”

      The Jews of Iraq have a common history with the Jews of Russia?

      • Mooser
        January 23, 2018, 10:40 pm

        “Jews … are united through their common history”

        To a point, yes, and I’m sure millions of Jews all over the world will be distressed, and possibly horrified as Israel continues to fail.
        But there’s no way, for all your “united” shibboleths to force Jews outside of Israel to go over the cliff with Zionism.

        I’m sure you understand, “Boris”, it’s a matter of Jewish survival.

      • Boris
        January 23, 2018, 11:18 pm

        Who is forcing you, loser?

        I told you before – relax, we don’t need you.

        And your “survival” is living as subjugated people in a ghetto. No proud Jew today would want that.

      • Yitzchak Goodman
        January 23, 2018, 11:51 pm

        The Jews of Iraq have a common history with the Jews of Russia?

        It isn’t just a question of contact between the two communities in, say, the 17th century, is it? They both participate in general Jewish history. Iraq produced the Babylonian Talmud and remained the center of Torah scholarship for long after that.

      • RoHa
        January 24, 2018, 2:31 am

        “It isn’t just a question of contact between the two communities in, say, the 17th century, is it?”

        I would have thought that the Jews in Russia would have lived very different lives, and been affected by different events, from the Jews in Iraq.

        But I don’t know. That’s why I asked.

      • Talkback
        January 24, 2018, 9:37 am

        Boris: “And your “survival” is living as subjugated people in a ghetto.”

        Yeah. Just look at all the Jews today living as subjugated people in ghettoes trying to survive. Especially those who make Nonkejs live as subjugated people in Palestinian enclaves.

        Boris: “No proud Jew today would want that.”

        Say Boris, were Jews before today not proud? And does it make the Jews of today proud of what they do to Nonjews in Palestine? How proud are Jews of keeping Nonjews expelled, denationalized and dispossessed?

      • Boris
        January 24, 2018, 11:22 am

        @Talking rear end

        You are obviously an imbecil.

        I am replying to you only because I like to play with your handle.

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2018, 11:59 am

        “I am replying to you only because I like to play with your handle.”

        “Boris”, there are much better sites for that. This isn’t really the place.

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2018, 12:04 pm

        “And your “survival” is living as subjugated people in a ghetto.”

        ROTFLMSJAO!!! You mean the “ghetto” which supports Israel, and can even convince the country to give Israel lots of money?

        The “ghetto” that doesn’t even count Jews? The “ghetto” which doesn’t draft Jews just for being Jews?

      • eljay
        January 24, 2018, 12:20 pm

        || Mooser: “And your “survival” is living as subjugated people in a ghetto.”

        ROTFLMSJAO!!! You mean the “ghetto” which supports Israel, and can even convince the country to give Israel lots of money?

        The “ghetto” that doesn’t even count Jews? The “ghetto” which doesn’t draft Jews just for being Jews? ||

        Yeah, but at any time the other inhabitants of the ghetto might possibly maybe turn on you. That’s why there’s nothing like the confident safety of a belligerent, intransigent, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State”…
        – located in the Middle East;
        – filled with non-Jewish “threatening demographics”;
        – engaged in the highly-provocative military occupation and colonization of territory outside of its / Partition borders;
        – surrounded by hostile Mooslims, Ayrabs, anti-Semitism and “Jew hatred”; and
        – perpetually on the verge of being “wiped off the map” and “pushed in to the sea”.

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2018, 12:21 pm

        “Iraq produced the Babylonian Talmud and remained the center of Torah scholarship for long after that.”

        That was one hell of a “thank you” we gave Iraq for it, huh?

      • Boris
        January 24, 2018, 2:29 pm

        Yeah, but at any time the other inhabitants of the ghetto might possibly maybe turn on you.

        Moser, you have your answer from a local antisemite – the best source.

        And as a history lesson and a reminder, German Jews in the thirties also felt that they are equal citizens and have a lot of influence on German life. Fortunately, most Jews have longer memory than yours.

      • Boris
        January 24, 2018, 2:38 pm

        That was one hell of a “thank you” we gave Iraq for it, huh?

        Huh?

        Arab countries had expelled their Jews – none left in Iraq, although Jews had inhabited the area before Arabs.

      • eljay
        January 24, 2018, 3:01 pm

        || Booris: … Moser, you have your answer from a local anti-Semite (sic) … ||

        Anti-Semite? Not me. I’m anti-Zionist, not anti-Sem…oh, okay, I see what you’re doing: You’re anti-Semitically conflating Zionism with all Jews and all Jews with Zionism. Got it.

      • Talkback
        January 24, 2018, 3:36 pm

        Boris: “Arab countries had expelled their Jews – none left in Iraq, although Jews had inhabited the area before Arabs.”

        Don’t confuse Arabians with Zionist Jews. The former weren’t settler colonials. They conquered and arabized the native population instead of expelling them.

        Btw. what was the reason that Jews were expelled? Can’t be Apartheid, because noone was expelling Jews to become a majority.

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2018, 3:41 pm

        “Arab countries had expelled their Jews – none left in Iraq,”

        Ah, so that’s what “Shock and Awe” and “Operation Iraqi Liberation” was all about.

      • Mooser
        January 24, 2018, 3:59 pm

        “You’re anti-Semitically conflating Zionism with all Jews and all Jews with Zionism”

        Except “Boris” cannot tell me, or anybody, who “all Jews” or indeed ‘any Jew’ is. He keeps on referring us to the Nazis for a system of Jewish identification, which is out of the question. So I never do know if I am truly “in the tent”, do I?

        Now let me see, where shall I put my trust,
        in a system which takes no notice of my religion, lets Jews worship as they please, and doesn’t care what I call myself, and allows me to call myself anything I want?…

        …or the Zionist system, which predicates everything on being ‘a Jew’ but cannot tell me who is, and who isn’t one? So they can keep me guessing? So I can keep proving it?
        Screw that noise.

      • oldgeezer
        January 24, 2018, 9:24 pm

        @Boris

        Mooser lives in a ghetto? Pray tell the name of that ghetto so we can be enlightened.

        You really can lay claim to a hysterical homeland somewhere. Personally I’d put your parents and community up for child abuse if you’re the result.

      • Marnie
        January 25, 2018, 12:13 am

        Boris January 13, 2018 at 8:53 am with 7 replies

        This is my last comment here, which sums everything up:

        Losers, you can’t face reality!

  12. Ossinev
    January 24, 2018, 1:36 pm

    @Boris
    “I am replying to you only because I like to play with your handle”

    Great news Boris. Kevin Spacey also recently admitted that he liked to”play with handles”.

  13. Talkback
    January 24, 2018, 1:44 pm

    Boris: “@Talking rear end”

    You are obviously an imbecil.”

    I am replying to you only because I like to play with your handle.”

    Did I hit a nerve with my questions which you can’t answer? ROFL.

    • Boris
      January 24, 2018, 2:32 pm

      Questions? What questions?

      You only produce hot air!

      • Talkback
        January 24, 2018, 3:29 pm

        These questions, Boris:

        Were Jews before today not proud? And does it make the Jews of today proud of what they do to Nonjews in Palestine? How proud are Jews of keeping Nonjews expelled, denationalized and dispossessed?

        Please don’t chicken out and answer them.

      • Boris
        January 24, 2018, 4:51 pm

        Well, my soft-bottom friend, since you asked me nicely, I will answer your questions.

        Here is the answer to the first one:

        Looking back 2,000 years, Jews were very proud people. They had defeated Greeks (remember Chanukah?) , even Romans found it difficult to pacify them. As the matter of fact, Romans were humiliated by small Judea as it took 8 legions to win Judean war, while it took only 2 to win Egypt. So they took their vengeance on survivors of Judean wars and Jewish rebellion.

        The policy of Roman Empire toward Jews was humiliation. Emperor Hadrian renamed Judea to Palestine in order to wipe out Jewish history from the area. Jews were banned from Jerusalem. The policy of humiliation continued especially after acceptance of Christianity, during Crusades, etc. It was important for the Church to show that Jews, who they claimed killed Jesus, are miserable.

        Often it was even worse than humiliation – it was murder, rape, extortion, expulsion, etc. Jews in Eastern Europe were subject to pogroms – beatings, murder, rape, etc. Any proud Jewish man resisting the oppression was killed. So, the “wise” policy of Jews in Europe was to hide – and not to fight the oppressor. Some became mosers – informers on their own people. These were the lowest of the low – degraded Jews.

        Jews in Muslim countries had it a bit better. They had to pay special tax, there were many restrictions – like they could not ride horses, they could not testify against a Muslim in court, etc. Often Muslim boys were told to stone Jews, especially after Friday prayer, and Jews could not respond – they had to flee. All of this was designed to humiliate Jews.

        During this time Jews had developed the idea that the honor is not that important. Life is. If a Jewish girl was raped, it was an awful event, but she was not expelled from the community. If you compare it to other nations – even today such girl is murdered, often by her family.

        Anyway, this is my short answer to you my cushy friend regarding whether Jews were not proud before.

        I will write answers to the other questions once this one passes the “moderation”.

      • Boris
        January 24, 2018, 6:54 pm

        Ok. Here are the rest of the answers.

        With questions like “what you do to Nonjews” you enter the imbecil territory.

        Which “nonjews” are you talking about?

        Are these Arab countries that had tried to destroy Israel ever since the country establishment? Israel kicked their lower “back” and I am very proud of it.

        Some “nonjews” were very hostile to the Jewish population of Palestine and were invited by the Arab counties to leave while their armies wipe out those pesky Jews. They left – decisions have consequences, Israel does not let them to return.

        Sad, nothing to be proud of.

        BUT, even more Jews were expelled by the same Arab countries. These Arab countries are the ones who do not allow the people they told to leave to integrate, while Israel had accepted all the Jews who came from these areas. So, it should be resolved as a population exchange and these permanent refugees should settle where the Jews lived before.

        Some nonjews live in Gaza and the disputed territories. Israel left Gaza and gave its Palestinians all the infrastructure. It got rocket fire in return. Pals famously rejected all peace proposals – produce nothing but terrorism. They hope that ignorant people like you will be sympathetic to their case. I am proud how Israel deals with this situation – very measured, trying to minimize civilian casualties, and win hearts and minds. But this will take time.

        Finally, there are many “nonjews” in Israel. They enjoy equal rights, many are in the position of power – like members of parliament, government service, army, courts, etc. I am very proud how Israel treats its non-Jewish minorities.

        P.S. I am not going to answer any more questions on this thread.

      • Keith
        January 24, 2018, 7:06 pm

        BORIS- “The policy of Roman Empire toward Jews was humiliation.”

        Why don’t you reference some of these ludicrous assertions to show that you are not making this up. Sounds like Jewish myth-history to me.

      • oldgeezer
        January 24, 2018, 8:16 pm

        @Boris

        90% at least of what you posted was pure myth and propaganda. Then you weasel out by saying you won’t answer. Cowardice. Or an intelligent response knowing that there are no facts to support your asinine statements.

        I often cut off conversations. It’s fair but if you truly feel that you have the right on your side do so without taking a massive dump before quitting. Just have the guts to respond and say I’m done instead of adding a pile of manure to your position.

      • Boris
        January 24, 2018, 11:55 pm

        old fart,

        I wrote that I will not answer any more questions.

        You did not ask any – just made some stupid statements.

        So, this comment is not an answer to any question, just a simple response to you – buzz off!

      • Marnie
        January 25, 2018, 12:13 am

        Boris January 13, 2018 at 8:53 am with 7 replies

        This is my last comment here, which sums everything up:

        Losers, you can’t face reality!

        Boris January 24, 2018, 6:54 p.m.

        P.S. I am not going to answer any more questions on this thread.

        Just another promise you have no intention of keeping. LOSER.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2018, 6:51 pm

        “So, this comment is not an answer to any question, just a simple response to you – buzz off!”

        Wow “Boris” the way you seized control of this thread was impressive.

        Like an intellectual Entebbe raid, or something.

      • Talkback
        January 26, 2018, 3:10 am

        Mooser: “Wow “Boris” the way you seized control of this thread was impressive.

        Like an intellectual Entebbe raid, or something.”

        More like Zionists took over Palestine. He seems to think that Mondoweiss is occupied by Zionists and that he can expell everybody he likes. Or maybe … well, you may know the problem that Ukraine has with Neo-Nazis.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2018, 2:41 pm

        “He seems to think that Mondoweiss is occupied by Zionists and that he can expel everybody he likes”

        Have you ever seen a herd of ilk so afflicted with grandiosity as the self-selected egos-on-the-half-shell who advocate for the kosher-crusader state?

      • Talkback
        January 26, 2018, 4:47 pm

        Mooser: “Have you ever seen a herd of ilk so afflicted with grandiosity as the self-selected egos-on-the-half-shell who advocate for the kosher-crusader state?”

        Nope. Besides Israel’s actions this herd is the other reason why Israel is hated so much and with that unfortunately also innocent Jews.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2018, 6:59 pm

        “Besides Israel’s actions this herd is the other reason why Israel is hated so much”

        “Talkback”, I have no idea, cannot figure out what they are trying to do. Can they really be this unconscious of their effect?

      • Talkback
        January 27, 2018, 7:09 am

        Mooser: ““Talkback”, I have no idea, cannot figure out what they are trying to do. Can they really be this unconscious of their effect?”

        As so many others can be, too.

  14. Talkback
    January 24, 2018, 10:44 pm

    Boris: “@Talking rear end … Well, my soft-bottom friend, … kicked their lower “back””

    Did you know that anal fixation is quite common amongst racists?

    Boris: “… since you asked me nicely, I will answer your questions.”

    I think the “chicken” part was more effective.

    Boris: “With questions like “what you do to Nonjews” you enter the imbecil territory. Which “nonjews” are you talking about”

    What an imbecile question to distract from the fact that you will not answer my question.

    Boris: “Are these Arab countries that had tried to destroy Israel ever since the country establishment?”

    Well Boris, this is just a kindergarden Hasbara.

    First of all, the establishment of Israel had nothing to do with being legal since the partition plan was rejected by the party that represented the majority of the citizens of Palestine. It was nothing else than a terrorist coup d’etat and violation of Security Council resolution 46 which prohibited the declaration of any state after the partition plan was abandoned or at least put on ice and the international community was working on puting Palestine under UN trusteeship. (To declare Israel on the 15 May 1948 was even a violation of the partion plan which was accepted by the Zionist only to reallow immigration, build up an army and then conquer all of Palestine. Guess what actually happened in 1967).

    Secondly the only party that was interested in war, because it needed to acquire a territory for its state was the Jewish Agency. At the end of April the Arab countries accepted a ‘truce’ brokered by the US, but the Jewish Agency rejected it and the UN trusteeship plan.

    “Ten days before Britain’s exit from Palestine, U.S. officials there faced the Jewish Agency’s rejection of a truce as well as a trusteeship arrangement to replace what the State Department and the White House conceded to be the failure of the partition plan. In evaluating the situation, Robert McClintock, a special assistant to Dean Rusk, then director of the Office of UN Affairs, deliberated over the implications of these developments. It may well be, he speculated, that Washington would soon be confronted with a situation created by Jewish military forces, including the Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun, in which it would have to determine whether a “Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.”15 Washington would face what McClintock called an “anomalous situation,” in which “the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership.”
    http://mepc.org/us-policy-israelpalestine-1948-forgotten-history?print=

    It is obvious who the real aggressor is, Boris. The party that destroyed Palestine. Politically and physically.

    Boris: “Some “nonjews” were very hostile to the Jewish population of Palestine and were invited by the Arab counties to leave while their armies wipe out those pesky Jews. They left – decisions have consequences, Israel does not let them to return. ”

    That’s one way to justify expulsion to achieve a Jewish majority. Of course it is kindergarden Hasbara, again.

    “In fact, the declassified material contradicts the ‘order’ theory, for among these sources are documents testifying to the considerable efforts of the AHC [Arab Higher Committee] and the Arab states to constrain their [the Palestinians’] flight.”
    http://mepc.org/us-policy-israelpalestine-1948-forgotten-history?print=

    And that those who the Apartheid Junta didn’t kill right away but expelled were “very hostile” and “left” the country is not only incitement but blatant Nakba denial. I wonder how it passed moderation.

    It’s obvious to everybody that the Apartheid Junta expelled them to achieve a Jewish majority. And it keeps them expelled for the very same reason. It wouldn’t allow them to return even if they were licking their boots cause their biggest crime is that they aren’t Jewish.

    Boris: “These Arab countries are the ones who do not allow the people they told to leave to integrate, …

    These Arab Countries told them to stay in Palestine while Jews were massacring or expelling them and preventing them to return. That’s the reason why these Arab countries intervened besides Jordan which was collaborating with the Jewish Agency to split up the country. (No, I’m not talking about Ribbentropp and Molotow.)

    Boris: “… while Israel had accepted all the Jews who came from these areas.”

    How selfless and of Israel to accept all the Jews after it expelled nearly all of the Nonjews, right? It almost sounds not genuinely racist at all to be true. As if Israel wasn’t an Apartheid state.

    Boris: “So, it should be resolved as a population exchange and these permanent refugees should settle where the Jews lived before.”

    Sure Boris. The ethnic cleansing of Nonjews is a Zionist’s wet dream.

    Boris: “Some nonjews live in Gaza and the disputed territories.”

    About 2/3 of the Gazans are those which the Apartheid Junta keeps expelled and there is no such thing as “disputed” territory except in Zionist kindergardens. Even the Supreme Apartheid Court bases its ruling on the legal framework that the Westbank is held under belligerent occupation. Not to mention the rest of the world and the Interantional Court of Justice.

    Boris: “Israel left Gaza and gave its Palestinians all the infrastructure.”

    Yep. The Greenhouse propaganda—How Gazan history is being rewritten to dehumanize Palestinians
    http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/propaganda-dehumanize-palestinians/

    Boris: “It got rocket fire in return.”

    That was not a return for leaving Gaza, but for continuing to oppress, disposess and kill Palestinians for half a century. The Apartheid Junta and especially its actual crime minister knew very well what would happen if JSIL would withdraw and leave a power vacuum behind. This was all planned to ensure the permanence of the occupation and being able to point to Gaza every time someone calls for ending the occupation. When Hamas was elected they imposed a truce upon themselves. And what followed? More than 14.000 Israeli artillery shells into Gaza in 2006 alone.

    Boris: “Pals famously rejected all peace proposals …”

    ROFL. Like Jews famously offered “peace proposals” that are bantustan and ethnic cleansing solutions neither based on international law, security council resolutions or human rights? Which side again is willing to give up 78% of Palestine and share Jerusalem?

    Boris: “– produce nothing but terrorism”.

    ROFL. Which side again needed to terrorize a whole people to establish a state and expell the majority of its native population? Which side needs to terrorize a whole people to maintain an occupation? Israel has been nothing else than a terror state from the get to. If the Palestinians wouldn’t lift a finger the Apartheid Junta would still continue to terrorize Palestinians to maintain its oppression.

    Boris: “They hope that ignorant people like you will be sympathetic to their case.”

    Contrary to people like you most of the world population doesn’t have symathy for Apartheid or any other form of institutionalized racism or for state that needs to expell people and differentiate between nationals and citizens to achieve and maintain a racist national character.

    And that you of all people call me ignorant is a mix between stupid and dishonest. Like your next statement.

    Boris: “I am proud how Israel deals with this situation – very measured, trying to minimize civilian casualties, and win hearts and minds. ”

    Yes, yes. If only Palestinians would treat Jews exactly the same way that Jews have been treating Palestinians since the late 30s, right? At least they should treat you this way – the whole experience. And if Israel continues to win the hearts and minds one day it may make a huge step from place three to place two in the top 10 of the most hated countries in the world. By then you will be completely out of touch with everything that truly exists.

    Boris: “Finally, there are many “nonjews” in Israel. They enjoy equal rights …”

    Now you are lying again. If they would enjoy equal rights Israel wouldn’t have a problem with a political party that calls for equal rights. The right to equality was explicitly removed from one of its Basic Laws. According to the same Basic Law every fundamental right can be violated by “a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required”. Israel differentiates between nationals (only Jews) and citizens to grant only its nationals the rights that citizens would normaly have in true democratic states.

    Boris: “P.S. I am not going to answer any more questions on this thread.”

    You cowardly never answered the question how proud Jews are of keeping Nonjews expelled, denationalized and dispossessed. Your whole comment was just a distraction full of lies, distortions, falsifications of history, delusions, incitement and denial. To put it short: The usual Hasbara.

Leave a Reply