Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 49 (since 2010-08-23 16:20:00)

I support Israel against its enemies. I don't label myself a "Zionist," but it won't matter in these parts.

Showing comments 49 - 1
Page: 1

• Jerusalem Day response - 'the only statement we make on Jerusalem Day is our thanks for the freedom to live and pray in our holiest city'
  • Yitzgood May 14, 2013 at 12:08 am

    Here’s another example from the Jerusalem Post which illustrates that converts are really not accepted and treated just like their fellow Jews

    The relevance of this to my point about the Khazar theory or any other point I've made escapes me. It seems from this that marriage bureaus in Israel are cumbersome and bureaucratic and causing problems on a number of different fronts, including conversion. That doesn't suggest to me that converts aren't really Jews. We are talking about the theory, greatly beloved of various people with an assortment of axes to grind, that Ashkenazi Jews are mostly descended from an influx of converts that took place during the middle ages.

  • Yitzgood May 13, 2013 at 10:09 pm

    So it’s unsurprising that Gentiles feel the same way about vague and vicarious Zionist claims based on a “continuous presence” or an ancient “homeland”.

    People who argue with anti-Zionists should be better equipped to talk about the concrete and specific things that bind Jews to Israel. That's why I approved of the fact that the conversation focused briefly on bikkurim. The day after tomorrow I am going to be reciting the Musaf prayer. When I get to the first paragraph that is unique to the Musaf Shmoneh Esrei, I am going to say "But because of our sins we were exiled from our land." I am going to say that in a Palestinian language which has been the main vehicle for the Jewish intellectual tradition up until this day. A convert is going to say the same thing. Maybe you don't believe there was an exile and maybe you also don't believe that G-d told Mohammed to pray towards Mecca. We are supposedly trying to work out a way people can live together. That probably won't happen unless it is recognized that people's belief''s matter. Would you like me to point out something specific about that "continuous presence"? It involved an impressive amount of Jewish intellectual history: the Jerusalem Talmud, the work of the Masoretes, the Shulchan Aruch, Nachmanides' commentary on the Pentateuch. Israel wasn't off the map of Jewish history in that "2000 years" that the cliches of Israel advocacy are always talking about. Another ironic thing about the Khazar theory is that it appeals to people who actually recognize the Jewish connection to Israel and who have various motivations for denying that contemporary Jews are really Jews.

  • Yitzgood May 13, 2013 at 5:11 am

    Among the groups of the disgruntled religious zealots there are still many of the faithful who recite the prayers from the Siddur about the arrival of the Messiah, the Son of David.

    What does this have to do with my point about the Khazar theory?

  • Yitzgood May 12, 2013 at 11:43 am

    You seem to be glossing over the fact that many of your religious brethren look forward to a complete restoration of the Kingdom, not a democratic or secular State of Israel.

    You'll have to explain your point more.

  • Yitzgood May 12, 2013 at 11:39 am

    Here’s a source which discusses both and the fact that even Rambam assigns a different status to converts when it comes reciting viduy ma’aserot

    Interesting, but my point seems to stand. The second explanation has the convert addressing "another member of the Jewish community." A ger tzedek (unlike a ger toshav) is a Jew.

    As an agnostic, this is really only an area of cultural interest.

    That's OK for this discussion. One doesn't have to be a Muslim to state that Mecca is tremendously important to Muslims.

  • Yitzgood May 12, 2013 at 2:36 am

    What do you mean by “successors”, “continuity”, and “connected to”?

    The expression "knesset Yisroel" is used sometimes. Jews have had a shared destiny all this time. Converts are as Jewish as anyone else. I don't think I need to go into it more for the point I was making about the Khazar theory to be intelligible.

    What are the moral implications of this “succession/continuity/connection”?

    In regard to what? We probably wouldn't agree on what those are. If you can be more specific, however, I will try to answer your question.

    Or are you just babbling vague, meaningless, drivel?

    A little less rudeness, too, if you don't mind.

  • Yitzgood May 12, 2013 at 12:18 am

    See Devarim/Deuteronomy 26:3

    I'm impressed that someone at Modoweiss is thinking about bikkurim. See Rambam, Hilchos Bikurim 4:3. A convert can say it since Avraham is "av kol haolam kulo shnichnas tachas kanfei shechinah." It could be we don't paskin like the Rambam. Bring a source for that and I'll really be impressed. Anyway, if we are worried about whether geirim can bring bikkurim or not, then they are part of the tradition as much as anybody else.

  • Yitzgood May 10, 2013 at 7:09 pm with 18 replies

    The ironic thing about the Khazar theory--besides the fact that it is unlikely--is that it doesn't matter. Contemporary Jews are the successors to their Jewish predecessors. Conversion is a perfectly legitimate means of Jewish continuity. A Jew is connected to earlier generations of Jews, Rabbi Akiva's generation, R. Saadia Gaon's generation, Nachmanides' generation, the Arizal's generation, etc.

• 'NYT' landmark: Jewish philosophy prof says we 'really ought to question' Israel's right to exist
  • Yitzgood March 24, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    because they’re not jordanians

    I obviously think they are. You can defend your assertion if you want. Pesach is about to become all-consuming for me, so I am not likely to reply to anything addressed to me until after the holiday is all over. Chag kasher v'sameach to all who find that meaningful.

  • Yitzgood March 24, 2013 at 10:51 am

    If they’re stateless, they’re refugees.

    You're preaching to the converted. Why would I consider Jordanians of Palestinian descent to be either refugees or stateless?

  • Yitzgood March 19, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    And if all those words had been added in a period of a few years, rather than a few centuries, then the argument could be made that the language has more in common with Esperanto or Klingon then French or German.

    Is the basic vocabulary and grammar did not change, but a large number of fairly specialized words were added, nobody would feel it was a different language. Let us consider someone having difficulty reading an article loaded with, say, medical jargon. And in that case we are probably talking about words that were coined in a short period of time. In some ways modern Hebrew is closer to its older forms than other language are. When a language is spoken for century after century it changes--naturally and organically, you would probably argue--but compare Old English to Modern English. Hebrew from the time of Beowulf is much more intelligible to an Israeli than Old English is to a contemporary English speaker who has not studied it.

  • Yitzgood March 19, 2013 at 7:08 pm

    Does this apply to everyone or just Palestinian refugees?

    To everyone. That wasn't obvious?

  • Yitzgood March 19, 2013 at 1:07 am

    If I meant to say that, I would have said that.

    You said exactly "'Palestinian' is inaccurate because it is a cultural signifier and Hebrew is alien to that culture." But the culture Hebrew is "alien" to isn't Palestinian Arab culture? Do explain.

    I previously noted: “If you want to say that it is ‘a language native to the land of Palestine,’ then that would be accurate.”

    But "Palestinian" can't mean "native to the land of Palestine" or having its origin in the land of Palestine? Does this have something to do with those "accepted conventions of linguistics" you were talking about? (We aren't talking about the features of Hebrew that lead it to be classified as a Semitic language.)

    Good for Wikipedia. How is this, in any way, relevant?

    The term "Mesoamerican" would not have meant anything to the Mayans--it simply associates them with a current term for the region they inhabited. You could say about my application of the phrase "Palestinian language" to Hebrew that it is seldom put that way. That doesn't make it inaccurate.

  • Yitzgood March 18, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    “Palestinian” is inaccurate because it is a cultural signifier and Hebrew is alien to that culture.

    You mean its signification is limited to Palestinian Arab culture? So we are not allowed to say "Palestinian Talmud" or "Palestinian Amora" anymore?

    Wrong. Hebrew and Moabite were Canaanite languages.

    The land was called Canaan at one point. I don't see how that makes it wrong to call the country Palestine and say that it produced certain languages. Wikipedia calls the Mayans a "Mesoamerican civilization."

  • Yitzgood March 17, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    No, the question was whether Jewish nationalism was like other nationalisms.

    It seems obvious that it was in some respects and not in others. Mondoweissniks seem to divide the world into authentic and inauthentic people. Real nationalities and "artificial" ones or something like that. What do you expect a person named Chaim who came to this world via a Tel Aviv delivery room to believe about himself and his connection to the land of the Hebrew Prophets and Rabbi Akiva and the Arizal?

  • Yitzgood March 17, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    So you are saying that, because of the collective destiny thing, Jews form an alien presence in our countries, and should not be allowed full citizenship, etc.? Isn’t that anti-Semitic?

    Can't you just have a conversation without trying to score cheap points? Jews lived a separate existence throughout much of their history as a minority population in various countries. They often lived in societies where people were expected to conform where the majority religion was concerned and they practiced a different and not only that, an all-absorbing religion. Part of the impetus for political Zionism came from the fact that attempts to assimilate and lose that difference were often violently rebuffed.

  • Yitzgood March 17, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    That the Hebrew of Maimonedes would probably have been a bit different from Ancient Hebrew.

    It is more than a bit different. That has to do with the influence of the Mishnah and later Torah literature than it does with the influence of Arabic although it seems impossible that Arabic should not have had some influence.

  • Yitzgood March 16, 2013 at 11:38 pm

    Second, “Palestinian” is not a proper descriptive term when talking about languages. Hebrew could be considered a “Semitic “language, because that is the correct linguistic term.

    I am talking about the geographical identification of languages. There was an Egyptian language called Coptic until the 17th century or so. Sanskrit was an Indian language. In that sense, Hebrew and Moabite are/were Palestinian.

  • Yitzgood March 16, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    So will you be willing to drop the term “nation”, and reject Norman F’s claim that Jewish nationalism is like other nationalisms?

    I try not to get hung up on terminology. The question is whether the Jewish sense of collective destiny is real? Apparently it is. Zionism succeeded to large extent. Some movements don't accomplish anything and disappear.

  • Yitzgood March 16, 2013 at 11:22 pm

    Maimonides was a Spanish Arab, so his version of Hebrew probably had Western Arabic influence.

    I imagine so. He wrote Guide for the Perplexed and other works in Arabic. What is your point? I have seen Israelis with no religious background start studying the Mishneh Torah. They do fairly well with the language although the halachic concepts take them some time to learn.

  • Yitzgood March 15, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    In your scenario, what about the Palestinian families who’ve been refugees since being driven out of Israel?

    I don't think descendants of refugees are refugees in the normal sense of the word. Otherwise, I thought I explained--in the scenario I proposed immigration would be very limited but not so as to favor Jews or Arabs.

  • Yitzgood March 15, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    How is the Jewish connection to Hebrew different from the Roman Catholic connection to Latin?

    If you go back to the Middle Ages, there is an analogy to be drawn between Hebrew before Israel and Latin for Europeans. Hebrew was the language of education, scholarship, literature, etc. for Jews up until the Enlightenment. Afterwards it remained so for Orthodox Jews up until the present and it is for Israelis now (besides being a spoken language.) Latin started to lose its old role in the Renaissance (although Oliver Cromwell still needed a Latin secretary--John Milton.) Latin then and Hebrew in every era had a very robust existence, even when not a widely spoken language.

  • Yitzgood March 15, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    What a myopic view.

    I said "uniquely"--or did you mean something else?

  • Yitzgood March 15, 2013 at 12:53 am

    No, it wasn’t but the significance changed. Prior to Zionism, Jerusalem was a pilgrimage destination or a place to study. It was significant to Jews in the same way it was significant to Christians and Muslims.

    Many of the 613 mitzvot are inoperative without a functioning Temple in Jerusalem. Jerusalem gave Muslims the idea for the significance of Mecca. It is the Muslim's "first Qibla," but it is the Jews' only Qibla (just as we Jews have an Only Testament, so to speak, not an Old Testament.) I don't know if Xians have an actual obligation to go on pilgrimmages to Jerusalem although it has been a destination for Xian pilgrimmages. I'd say you are wrong on all counts.

    Zionists elevated it to a new level and then claimed exclusive ownership of it and the rest of Palestine.

    Jerusalem is incredibly important in traditional Judaism. Look up the Karbon Pesach, Maaser Sheni, and Bikkurim, for instance. Zionism comes in various forms. (Odd thing to have to point out here.) Probably most Zionists don't claim "exclusive ownership of it and the rest of Palestine." I would say that anti-Zionist Haredim have a more emphatic sense of the importance of Jerusalem than most Zionists.

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    Anti-Zionists are always pretending that it all comes down to equality, but I can't find any anti-Zionists who approve of merely abolishing every legal distinction between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    Image if native English speakers were to revive Latin with hardly more than a Bible as source material?

    Is this a good analogy? What about the Hebrew of the Mishna? Of Rashi? Of Maimonides?

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Hebrew–the Palestinian language

    Is that inaccurate?

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 11:42 am

    Jews only became a majority in Jerusalem in 1850

    Interesting that it happened without Zionism, isn't it? The First Aliyah was still 30 years in the future.

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 11:19 am

    you mean all those new words were an adaptation of original hebrew words?

    Many are. I don't know how many. Mazleg for fork is from a Biblical word referring to a larger implement, I think. Tut--strawberry--means a different berry if you encounter it in, say, Shulchan Aruch.

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 11:12 am

    that must have been a long time ago

    My mother's sisters all spoke Yiddish, but my mother was born in the US and only spoke a few words of Yiddish. (I'm in my early 50s.) The Yemenite Jews came out of Yemen with long payess. Assimilated American Jews meet your description and generally aren't all that interested in making Aliyah either. Jewish commitment generally increases attachment to Israel. I'm interested in what the "oh my" meant. Hebrew is a uniquely Palestinian language.

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 6:57 am

    That means “Jews are not a nation in the ordinary sense of the term (contemporary notions of nationality) but something different, but I want to use the word “nation” to pretend they are a nation in the ordinary sense.”

    The Jewish religion has always had an influence on Jewish life such that Jews differed from other people in ways that we associate with nations: language, dress, diet. I really don't care what term one uses for Jewish people-hood. Nachmanides lived in Palestine at the end of his life in the 13th century and wrote a classic biblical commentary in Hebrew--the world's only surviving uniquely Palestinian language. Jews all over the world were trying to give their children the Hebrew instruction needed to read works such as that commentary and every Jewish community had a fair number of members who could. Nachmanides re-established the Jewish community in Jerusalem also. Passsover is coming. I am going to have two seders because I live in chutz la'aretz. For some reason, I don't think Israel's significance for Jews was invented by the Zionist movement. I think the Mondoweiss crowd gives Zionism too much credit for Zionism.

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 6:32 am

    i don’t think the vote can be seen as a racist referendum

    I doubt that everyone who voted for it voted for the same reason. A fair number who did can probably be described as nativists. In any event, maybe we mean something different by "tensions." There is some friction, some irritation, in-group, out-group feelings. I wasn't asserting that inter-ethnic relations are bad over-all.

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 6:21 am

    well, since it doesn’t sound like you’re concerned about getting the opinion of any palestinian refugees (the pa doesn’t represent them), is it ok with you if we eliminate the israelis from the decision making process?

    No--can you answer now? I proposed an egalitarian country ruled democratically by the actual inhabitants of Israel who are not subject to Hamas rule.

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 6:15 am

    So Biblical Hebrew is strictly ritualistic and religion-related

    That's supposed to be a statement about what sort of language it is?

    while “Modern Hebrew” is a Zionist invention.

    It was an adaptation of Hebrew. You make it sound like that Klingon language that somebody made up. A whole intellectual tradition was carried on in Hebrew in post-Biblical times in a Hebrew that isn't exactly Biblical Hebrew. You're very glib at dismissing things of that sort.

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 12:22 am

    there is no Jewish Nation in the sense of shared values, language, customs, norms, or traditions

    Which Jews own the Gemara and which ones don't? You aren't just pointing to the fact that some Jews aren't very involved in Judaism, are you?

  • Yitzgood March 14, 2013 at 12:13 am with 25 replies

    So let's propose an absolutely egalitarian state consisting of green-line Israel and the West Bank. That is the territory that Israel and the PA are in a position to negotiate about. Let us say they solve the question of immigration policy by severely limiting immigration and there is a quota-system that balances Jewish and Arab immigration without favoring either side. Now our new state-- let's call it Egalitaria--has a substantial Jewish majority and the only factor in maintaining or changing its demographic balance is the relative birthrate. Is that OK with you? No Palestinian right of return.

  • Yitzgood March 13, 2013 at 11:57 pm

    except for the fact jews aren’t a nation. I’ll ask my favorite question to those who push this again. show one major connection not related to religion in their “nation”

    If Jews upset contemporary notions of how religion is different from nationality, that's perfectly alright with me. Is the Hebrew language a "major connection"? It isn't "not related" to religion, I suppose, but that disqualifies its role as a national unifying factor? That seems to be the premise of your question. What if I don't accept your premise?

  • Yitzgood March 13, 2013 at 11:25 pm

    I live in California, too, and I agree with you about the glories of hispanic culture. However, surely you remember Prop 187? You don't speak for Californians who voted for it, do you?

  • Yitzgood March 13, 2013 at 11:14 pm

    French is spoken throughout all of Canada dufus. Yo really don;t have a clue what you are talking about.

    Only Quebec has a majority of people who regard themselves as primarily French-speakers, and there is a Quebec separatist (or "Sovereginty") movement. Are Basques ethnically distinct? Does it have something to do with their language?

  • Yitzgood March 12, 2013 at 11:25 pm with 2 replies

    Frenchness might describe behavior or mannerisms, but as in terms of describing ethnicity, it does not exist.

    I'm not sure that I--"blatantly stupid" as I am--understand your point. Name some ethnicities that do exist and then perhaps I will understand better.

  • Yitzgood March 12, 2013 at 11:21 pm with 4 replies

    You speak English, Yitzgood. Are you trying to say that makes you ethnically English?

    There are ethnic tensions between English speakers and Spanish speakers in the US, where I live. "Ethnic tensions" is correct terminology? Language has a great deal to do with what people perceive as ethnic divisions.

  • Yitzgood March 12, 2013 at 11:19 pm with 5 replies

    It invalidates all ethnic nationalist movements. If that includes a Palestinian nationalist movement, fine. What the argument supports is equal rights for Palestinians.

    Simply arguing for an absolutely egalitarian and ethnically blind system in the territory Israel controls--Green-line Israel plus the West Bank--doesn't advance the goals that Palestinians advance publicly. That territory has a solid Jewish majority. Is your proposed egalitarian state allowed to use democratic means to determine its immigration policy? That means no Palestinian right of return unless the Jewish majority votes for it.

    There is nothing “ethnic” about having a common language in a country.

    Language has a great deal to do with what people generally perceive as ethnic division. Canada has a French separatist movement.

  • Yitzgood March 10, 2013 at 1:57 pm with 183 replies

    This argument--that "any state that 'belongs' to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality"--is an anti-Zionist commonplace which raises the obvious objection that it invalidates all national movements, including the Palestinian nationalist movement it ostensibly supports. Levine--to use his terms--is inviting but failing to acknowledge the question of whether France is also bad because not everybody in France is French in the ethnic sense although the civic sense of Frenchness does not seem to be entirely divorced from the ethnic one. (The words of the French national anthem, for instance, are always going to be in French, not Italian.) So what gives?

• Exile and the prophetic: Gaza and the ethics of Jewish power
  • Yitzgood November 23, 2012 at 2:49 am with 2 replies

    Especially when you consider that most Jews in the US have been denied a college, or even high-school education.

    "Most Jews"? Would you mind explaining this?

• What if an American politician came out for preserving a Christian majority?
  • Yitzgood July 20, 2012 at 12:32 am

    the homeland they think is actualyl soneone else’s

    It isn't even the homeland to Israeli Jews who were born there? Anyway, you aren't really answering what I wrote. If I say "A, B, and C are not the same as 'some forms of nationalism,'" you can't just argue with A, B, and C.

  • Yitzgood July 18, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    ‘Self determine’ is now my throw up trigger, please quit using it.

    Maybe you should comment on a blog about gardening.

  • Yitzgood July 17, 2012 at 1:56 pm with 3 replies

    Would any Jewish nationalists here care to explain why some forms of ethnic and religious nationalism are legitimate and others are not?

    I am probably going to regret this, but here goes: Thinking that the alternate to self-determination is persecution or thinking that a certain land is one's homeland or thinking that an ethnic unit should unite into a political unit is not the same as thinking, for instance, that one's group is biologically superior to other humans. How's that?

• Obama's Jewish liaison reached out to Orthodox group that coddles those charged with child abuse
  • Yitzgood May 13, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    This does not justify filtering accusations of wrong-doing through any person or group who has a clear conflict of interest in the matter (whether personal / communal / tribal / cultural / etc.) and giving him/them the power to potentially suppress evidence of wrongdoing

    Not every Rabbi has a conflict of interest. Check your assumptions. I would think that it is the same as getting advice in any other serious matter--get the advice from someone worthy to give it. Halachah includes the concept of someone who is "nogeia bedavar"-- he has some interest in the outcome of the inquiry and is therefore inherently disqualified from issuing a ruling. Obviously Aguda does not advocate getting one's halachic guidance from such a person and they are entitled to have their public positions reported accurately. They are an umbrella organization which includes a large number of groups. A few of these groups may have the problems the NYT is talking about, but it doesn't seem to occur to participants in this thread that a molesting teacher is a normal parent's worst nightmare.

  • Yitzgood May 13, 2012 at 12:48 am with 9 replies

    The statement--linked to in the NYT article--from Agudah (which is how one refers to them in one word) does not favor "coddling" abusers. It says, in fact. that it is obligatory to report abusers when the report is not simply based on conjecture. It does treat the situation the same way Orthodoxy treats other situations--as subject to halacha. Never mind Orthodoxy--reporting people to the authorities is a sensitive and serious matter--do you disagree with that?

Showing comments 49 - 1
Page: 1