Trending Topics:

NY panel featuring Adelson asks whether Jews can exist without Israel

Israel/Palestine
on 154 Comments

AdelsonA heck of a full-page ad in the New York Times the other day, don’t you think? For an event at Yeshiva University this Tuesday. Someone’s spendy.
Will Jews ExistAt least three of the panelists are rightwingers, including the formidable Sheldon Adelson, and Shmuley Boteach, mentor to Democrats (Senator-elect Cory Booker and Ambassador Samantha Power).

It would seem that in the view of this panel, Jewish existence is predicated on the existence of the state of Israel, because Jews everywhere else are assimilating. This is connected to Yair Lapid’s idea that the only place you can be Jewish is Israel. (And to the widespread belief inside Israel that American Jews are falling away from Judaism.)

Many supporters of Israel say it is anti-Semitic to oppose the existence of a Jewish state. I imagine this panel will agree.

Thanks to Helena Cobban, who took the photograph at the top.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

154 Responses

  1. just
    just
    October 20, 2013, 11:13 am

    Again with Iran…

    Simply insane.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      October 20, 2013, 4:11 pm

      That ad is a perfect example of the classic saying that the best liars believe their own lies. Iran threatens the Jewish future? These people are truly insane.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 20, 2013, 5:20 pm

        In fact, Iran in a way has been assisting Israel in growing its illegal colonies of Jews in the West Bank, albeit unintentionally.

      • just
        just
        October 20, 2013, 9:18 pm

        Insane indeed.

        Iranian Jewish folk CHOOSE to live in Iran. Moreover,

        “AFP – Tehran?s Jewish community has urged US President Barack Obama to seize an “unrepeatable” opportunity to mend fences with Iran now that a reputed moderate holds the Islamic republic’s presidency.

        The call was made in an open letter from the head of Tehran?s Jewish community, Homayoun Sameyah Najaf Abady, a copy of which was sent to AFP.

        “If the US and the international community do not make the best of this golden and perhaps unrepeatable opportunity, then it will be in the benefit of those who are against the normalisation of ties between Iran and the US,” Sameyah wrote.

        “It would also make it easy for pessimists to doubt the good intentions of the US,” he added.”

        http://www.france24.com/en/20131013-iranian-jews-urge-obama-seize-rouhani-overtures

    • Blownaway
      Blownaway
      October 20, 2013, 9:39 pm

      Trying to scare Jews into emigrating is a deliberate strategy to inflate the population. Like calling an Indian sect Jews and allowing them to emigrate in an effort to inflate the population of Jews.

  2. annie
    annie
    October 20, 2013, 11:39 am

    lol, this is completely over the top. can’t stop laughing. sorry. sorry.

    • Dutch
      Dutch
      October 20, 2013, 3:24 pm

      Annie, no sorry’s — I’m in your arms with laughter. This is the best joke of the 21st century, by far, no matter what has yet to come. I hope one of the MW-team will film it — so we can sell it to Comedy Central.

      • amigo
        amigo
        October 21, 2013, 7:48 am

        Dutch, The question is ???? Is Adelson addled.

        Personally , I think he is insane.

  3. Blownaway
    Blownaway
    October 20, 2013, 11:47 am

    A more relevant question these days is Can Israel exist without Jews? Smart secular Jews know they can practice their religion (if indeed they want to “practice”) anywhere and still achieve personal and professional goals not at the expense of subjugating others in a lot of enlightened western societies, ironically even in Germany

    • Mike_Konrad
      Mike_Konrad
      October 20, 2013, 3:33 pm

      Smart secular Jews know they can practice their religion (if indeed they want to “practice”) anywhere and still achieve personal and professional goals not at the expense of subjugating others in a lot of enlightened western societies, ironically even in Germany

      Secular Jews, yes!

      But Orthodoxy is growing rapidly among Jews. Orthodox Judaism requires a Temple in Jerusalem.

      This is not going to go away.

      • annie
        annie
        October 20, 2013, 4:10 pm

        Orthodox Judaism requires a Temple in Jerusalem.

        i thought the messiah was supposed to build it. he’s not around yet last i heard. nothing about ‘you provide the deed and then i’ll come’

      • Dutch
        Dutch
        October 20, 2013, 4:41 pm

        ‘Orthodox Judaism requires a Temple in Jerusalem.’

        Stop it, please. This is all just too funny. I can guess the next scene in which they’re being rolled out of town, smeared with tar and feathers, right? I can’t wait.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        October 20, 2013, 4:50 pm

        Orthodox Judaism requires a temple in Jerusalem
        Temple in Jerusalem requires Jewish control over East Jerusalem
        Jewish control over East Jerusalem requires apartheid
        Apartheid sucks all the goodness out of the prayers in the Temple
        There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Yossi

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        October 20, 2013, 4:14 pm

        Orthodox Judaism requires a Temple in Jerusalem.

        Where do you (MK) get your information about Jews?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 20, 2013, 4:29 pm

        But Orthodoxy is growing rapidly among Jews. Orthodox Judaism requires a Temple in Jerusalem.

        Then all of the Orthodox Sages who practiced Judaism without one were mistaken. Please explain why they didn’t sanction an atheist takeover of the timing of these important matters in the first place? It would have saved everyone concerned a lot of time.

      • piotr
        piotr
        October 20, 2013, 9:39 pm

        Actually, Israel is quite problematic for Judaism. It has a centralized rabbinic bureaucracy which is at odds with most variants of Judaism. The most orthodox dislike it for its laxity and often for statism and militarism (and are now recognized as a “demographic threat”), the non-orthodox, which are in majority in USA, are either not recognized at all or barely recognized etc.

        A typical American Jewish immigrant to Israel leaves behind his status as a “good member of Jewish community” and becomes a heretic. Usually they stop bothering with attending a synagogue on a regular basis. Some of course practice “national Judaism”, a nationalistic-militaristic version of orthodoxy. Just look at the panel here: only Boteach represents a “correct Judaism” according to the official Israeli standard, even though the panel is explicitly selected as “very Jewish”.

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        October 21, 2013, 2:13 am

        Greetings Mike Konrad,
        …….Orthodox Judaism requires a Temple in Jerusalem…
        Where was the temple from 70AD to 1948AD?
        How did World Jewry survive? The did!
        ziusudra
        PS The more Orthodoxy the merrier.
        Today ca. 800K in Israel, almost a 6th,
        of Israel’s pop. That means, no more wars,
        they neither serve nor work!

      • Theo
        Theo
        October 22, 2013, 7:25 am

        ziu dear

        They don´t serve = no wars
        do not work = no food
        Just leave them alone and they solve the problems they cause Israel
        themselves in a few years, (or how long can a human live without food)?

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 21, 2013, 8:47 pm

        @ Mike_Konrad “Orthodox Judaism requires a Temple in Jerusalem.”

        Strange orthodox Jews in Australia, the US, UK, France Germany, Canada to name a few countries … survive without a temple in Jerusalem. Palestinian Orthodox Jews survived without a temple in Jerusalem for about 2,000 years

  4. seafoid
    seafoid
    October 20, 2013, 12:54 pm

    “NY panel featuring Adelson asks whether Jews can exist without Israel”

    Can Jews exist without Mars bars?
    Both were made widely available to Jews in the late 40s/ early 50s

  5. eljay
    eljay
    October 20, 2013, 1:16 pm

    >> Many supporters of Israel say it is anti-Semitic to oppose the existence of a Jewish state.

    “Jewish State” is a supremacist construct. Many (most?) supporters of Israel are hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists who are more concerned with Jewish supremacism and the existence of a supremacist “Jewish State” than they are with justice, equality or human rights.

  6. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail
    October 20, 2013, 1:35 pm

    It would seem to me anti-semitic to claim that Jews outside of Israel aren’t ‘real’ Jews, or need a right-wing fundamentalist military state to somehow validate their existence. However hard they try, it is not up to zionists to be judge and jury on what constitutes Jewishness. Indeed many would claim they are the last people to ask, given that they have hijacked the concept for an explicitly political and geographical segregationist, anti-Enlightenment, anti-democratic ideology which rejects universal human rights, and promotes violence as the means to perpetuate their garrison state.
    Jews, like Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and the Flat Earth Society, will survive all political and geographical entities, and their attempts to contain them.

  7. Tuyzentfloot
    Tuyzentfloot
    October 20, 2013, 1:41 pm

    I wonder why made the font grey rather than a dark red. Red would definitely have made the point more clearly. The font must at least reach 6.4 on the Klotz-Markov scale of font threateningness, though a bit of barbed wire around it would have been an improvement.

  8. Hostage
    Hostage
    October 20, 2013, 1:56 pm

    Many supporters of Israel say it is anti-Semitic to oppose the existence of a Jewish state. I imagine this panel will agree.

    The usual artless mantra repeated by the likes of Foxman, the ADL, and their puppets at the US State Department regarding “What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?” includes:
    DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL:
    * Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.
    http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm

    That’s nonsense. The international community of states, including the USA, has denied the legitimacy of the many other states, including the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, i.e. UN Security Council, Resolution 216 (1965) of 12 November 1965:

    The Security Council
    1. Decides to condemn the unilateral declaration of independence made by a racist minority in Southern Rhodesia;
    2. Decides to call upon all States not to recognize this illegal racist minority regime in Southern Rhodesia and to refrain from rendering any assistance to this illegal regime.
    Adopted at the 1258th meeting

    link to un.org

    It’s perfectly okay to want an illegal regime to go away, even if it’s a Jewish one.

    • OlegR
      OlegR
      October 21, 2013, 6:01 am

      Has any state in the UN after been accepted into the UN was declared illegal and dismantled by the UN ?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 21, 2013, 7:09 am

        Has any state in the UN after been accepted into the UN was declared illegal and dismantled by the UN ?

        Yes, the apartheid regime in the former Union of South Africa and Namibia was declared a crime against humanity. The General Assembly refused to accept the credentials of its delegations. The Security Council finally adopted sanctions, including a regime of compulsory non-recognition and shunning. It also declared its continued presence in Namibia illegal.

        The Palestinians have adopted the South African model of BDS and (de)legitimization to deal with similar Israeli policies and practices of Apartheid.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 21, 2013, 7:58 pm

        Republic of South Africa continued on, but whites gave up politcal control.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 22, 2013, 3:56 am

        Republic of South Africa continued on, but whites gave up politcal control.

        You are overlooking the fact that the Republic of South Africa was kicked out of the Commonwealth of Nations, was forced to grant independence to South West Africa/Namibia, and then adopted interim and permanent constitutions that defined a new government for the single, sovereign state.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 22, 2013, 3:23 pm

        Of course South Africa was obliged to adhere to the terms of the Mandate, and allow independence for former German SouthWest Africa.
        South Africa chose to leave the British Commonwealth, and it changed its consititution and name (formerly, was Union of South Africa). In order to maintain white control of the government.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 23, 2013, 9:27 am

        Of course South Africa was obliged to adhere to the terms of the Mandate, and allow independence for former German SouthWest Africa.

        As a constitutional matter and a matter of state succession, the laws in effect in Namibia prior to independence remained in effect and any powers vested in the Republic of South Africa were deemed to be vested in the new government of Namibia. So the Republic of South Africa was a continuator state and the former entity of the same name was dissolved along with the union.

        It was never a foregone conclusion that South Africa was obliged to comply with the terms of the Mandate, and it certainly didn’t. In 1949 the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the ICJ because South Africa declared: 1) the Principal Allied Powers only had a temporary title that they ceded to the mandatories; 2) The League of Nations (LoN) was defunct; 3) The LoN functions regarding mandates were not transferred to the UN only certain “activities”; 4) the mandate was expired; 5) South West Africa was an integral part of the Union of South Africa and its government would not voluntarily place it under UN trusteeship.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 23, 2013, 2:01 pm

        Probably a good thing that former German South-West Africa was not part of South Africa when the whites gave up control 20 years ago.

  9. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    October 20, 2013, 1:56 pm

    Come on, now, has there really been Judaism, and therefore Jews, since the animal sacrifices ended?? What’s that? Adapting to new circumstances?

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      October 21, 2013, 4:46 am

      Come on, now, has there really been Judaism, and therefore Jews, since the animal sacrifices ended?? What’s that? Adapting to new circumstances?

      The archeological and textual evidence indicate that there were competing or mutually exclusive temple cults located at several sites in Egypt and Palestine before the animal sacrifices ended. Judaism was a creation of the Rabbis that unified several of the sects.

  10. David Doppler
    David Doppler
    October 20, 2013, 2:03 pm

    Always with the existential threats! Particularly ironic given the 3,000 year history of the Jews, only tiny slivers of which involved having a state, and the mass exodus of Jews liberals and intellectuals from Israel. It is transparently a manufactured threat designed to keep strongmen, fascist-tending leaders in power and justify the outrages they continuously commit against “those who would destroy us.” Time for a Reform Israel movement, to save it from itself. Oh, wait, that’s Mondoweiss.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      October 22, 2013, 5:22 am

      Always existential-I often think Zionism and transsexual activism have a lot in common. Start off with the persecution mindset and take it from there.

  11. MRW
    MRW
    October 20, 2013, 2:42 pm

    Israel and her supporters need a psychiatric nurse.

    • just
      just
      October 20, 2013, 4:40 pm

      They need an entire legion of psych professionals to help them to withdraw from Ziocaine– it rots the mind.

      But first they have to want it. It looks kinda bleak, but some things are improving.

    • amigo
      amigo
      October 21, 2013, 7:56 am

      “Israel and her supporters need a psychiatric nurse.” MRW

      He/ She would have to be nuts.

  12. Citizen
    Citizen
    October 20, 2013, 3:07 pm

    Did, say, Imperial Japan have a right to self-determination? Did it have a right to exist? I think it absurd in light of history since Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials and their international progeny laws that Israel is allowed to make such claims without being accompanied by canned laughter. That such claims are taken seriously by the Western powers is insanity.

  13. James Canning
    James Canning
    October 20, 2013, 3:09 pm

    One can be very supportive of Israel, and stress Israel’s need to get out of the West Bank.

    High rate of intermarriage of American Jews with non-Jews, is of course indicative of great advancements in wealth, power etc etc etc.

  14. James Canning
    James Canning
    October 20, 2013, 3:10 pm

    Maybe Sheldon Adelson shoukl offer bribes to Palestinians, to emigrate from the West Bank. Since he wants them to get lost.

    • annie
      annie
      October 20, 2013, 4:35 pm

      not an original idea in the least. i am sure it’s been done time and again. everytime some poster like mike konrad suggests this i asked him what price he’d put on jerusalem just to get an idea of how much they value it. so far, no one has named a price they would sell it for.

  15. amigo
    amigo
    October 20, 2013, 3:40 pm

    Power continues to embarrass decent Irish people.

    Shame on you Power.

    • just
      just
      October 20, 2013, 4:37 pm

      She embarrasses the American people as well– on the world stage.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      October 20, 2013, 9:18 pm

      But Samantha Power is an American, and has been since she was nine.

      • amigo
        amigo
        October 21, 2013, 8:15 am

        But Samantha Power is an American, and has been since she was nine.” RoHa.

        A moot point but her US citizenship would only have come when her parents received theirs , which could have taken years.

        I do not know if she held onto her Irish citizenship but in any case she was born in Ireland , hence my statement.

        The US is welcome to her.Had she been in Ireland during our troubled history, she most probably would have sold out to the highest bidder.

        Taken the King,s shilling, as it were.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 21, 2013, 7:54 pm

        “A moot point but her US citizenship would only have come when her parents received theirs , which could have taken years.”

        But she was becoming American in thought and practice during that period. (Australian terminology here is “formative years”.)

        “I do not know if she held onto her Irish citizenship”

        Americans are usually required to renounce other citizenships when they gain American citizenship, since the US frowns on multiple citizenships. (Except, of course, in the case of …)

        ” but in any case she was born in Ireland , hence my statement.”

        She was born there. So what? Nothing to do with Ireland anymore. She’s a product of America.

  16. Keith
    Keith
    October 20, 2013, 4:50 pm

    “It would seem that in the view of this panel, Jewish existence is predicated on the existence of the state of Israel, because Jews everywhere else are assimilating.”

    Yes indeed, Israel and Zionism are the glue which holds the tribe together. And the tribe facilitates organized power-seeking. And Sheldon Adelson and Shmuley Boteach are power-seekers.

    “This is connected to Yair Lapid’s idea that the only place you can be Jewish is Israel.”

    Israel needs the Diaspora American Jews to survive as an expansionist Jewish state. I assume that Adelson and Boteach know this. Yair Lapid, being an Israeli Jew, is out of touch with reality. Perhaps Abe Foxman can straighten him out.

  17. seafoid
    seafoid
    October 20, 2013, 5:00 pm

    If the only place you can be jewish is israel, judaism is more or less hopeless.
    Israel runs on militarised lunacy. So militarised lunacy is essential to judaism. Surely superjewman can save the religion.

    • just
      just
      October 20, 2013, 5:07 pm

      lol.

      Any sightings of this superhero?

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      October 20, 2013, 5:18 pm

      Jews are thriving in many countries. Britain and France especially. That said, the number of people who identify themselves as “Jews” in the UK is declining.

    • amigo
      amigo
      October 21, 2013, 7:37 am

      “Surely superjewman can save the religion.”seafoid.

      All he needs is some Kosher Krypton.

      Time for another annexation but this time it will be easy.

      A Planet without people, for a people without a Planet.

  18. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    October 20, 2013, 7:28 pm

    Very interesting! It is intuitive also if some one wants to read teh mind of the confused here

    Iran is a threat – so lets to and build cases agaisnt it, exact tremendous human cost on Iranians, enforce crippling sanction on top of crippling sanctions. Nuke if necessarry , use bunker buster , kill the scientist, take food away from Iran.

    The threat of assimilation is of same vital importance to Israeli existence and it comes from the increasingly secularized western society where religious identity dont enjoy importance any more — is somethinmg wrong with this picture?

    West is now Iran at some level, and it is being organized in NY?
    Maybe thats why Abrams manages to rise to the top of the adminsitration despite sugesting the necessity of “living apart” from gentiles.

    Also the rekindling of religious identities in this of age of western secularization reminds someone of the Jewish attempt to colonize the Palestine at an age when decolonization was gaining steam and speed .
    Only future will tell where we end up from the ill effects of thsi project.
    I know gentile tax payers money goes into funding DHS whose 90 % of discertionary funding supports Jewish houses and tax payers support the Jewish religious school where Israeli anthem is sung.

  19. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    October 20, 2013, 7:28 pm

    Applying pressure on Israel and the racist and discriminatory group Jewish National Fund who are having a conference in Denver Colorado this coming weekend by having a counter conference and protest. We will be protesting Colorado Governors’s luncheon that he is hosting for some of the JNF attendee’s. We are asking Governor Hickenlooper why he would as the top official of Colorado support such a racist group?

    Come join our protest and come hear Rabbi Weiss who will be speaking at a Mosque on Thursday evening about how the Jewish State is in total contradiction to Jewish religious beliefs. How there is no separation between synagogue and state in the so called democratic state of Israel.

    Please share with others
    Rabbi Weiss will speak at Denver Mosque

    Thursday, October 24th​​
    6pm​
    Schedule of events
    http://www.coloradobdscampaign.org/

  20. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    October 20, 2013, 7:30 pm

    RE: “NY panel featuring Adelson asks whether Jews can exist without Israel”

    MY COMMENT: Looking at the photographs of the panelists, I can’t help but wonder what Adelson is trying to hide (or compensate for) with his über-pompous pose (i.e., the grandiose ‘hand below the chin’ pose). I’ll bet it’s something really “dark and sticky”.

    AN EARLY AUTUMN EVENING’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE, proudly brought to you by the makers of the new Über-Xtreme Ziocaine Ultra CR (Controlled Release) Transdermal Patch®: Let The Good Times Roll!™

    Something in me, dark and sticky
    All the time it’s getting strong
    No way of dealing with this feeling
    Can’t go on like this too long

    [Chorus]
    This time you’ve gone too far [x3]
    I told you [x4]
    This time you’ve gone too far [x3]
    I told you [x4]

    Don’t talk back
    Just drive the car
    Shut your mouth
    I know what you are
    Don’t say nothing
    Keep your hands on the wheel
    Don’t turn around
    This is for real
    Digging in the dirt
    Stay with me, I need support
    I’m digging in the dirt
    To find the places I got hurt
    Open up the places I got hurt . . .
    ~ Peter Gabriel, 1992

    Peter Gabriel: Digging In The Dirt [VIDEO, 05:30] – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0C3DHp36zc

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      October 20, 2013, 7:47 pm

      P.S. RE: “I can’t help but wonder what Adelson is trying to hide (or compensate for) with his über-pompous pose (i.e., the grandiose ‘hand below the chin’ pose). I’ll bet it’s something really ‘dark and sticky’.” – me (from above)

      SEE: “Washington Post front page: Adelson demanded that Romney ‘join him in steadfast support of Israel’”, by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 10/24/12

      [EXCERPTS] On its front page today, the ‘Washington Post’ has a personality profile of Sheldon Adelson . . .
      . . . There’s a lot in this piece about motivation, and ethnic resentment, and Israel being at the heart of that motivation . . .
      . . . And Fisher links it with generational Jewish identity issues, involving the Holocaust and anti-Semitism in the U.S.:

      As World War II raged across the ocean, in a neighborhood of south Boston that was home to more Jews than any American city outside New York, kids like Sheldon Adelson learned that being a Jew in America both put a target on their backs and gave them a blessed refuge.
      Like other Jewish teens in Dorchester, young Sheldon was occasionally beaten up by Irish kids full of anti-Semitic vinegar . . .

      SOURCE – http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/washington-post-front-page-adelson-demanded-that-romney-join-him-in-steadfast-support-of-israel.html

  21. just
    just
    October 20, 2013, 7:46 pm

    It’s a terrible, horrible pre- Halloween prank perpetrated by the usual assortment of ghouls.

    • just
      just
      October 20, 2013, 8:51 pm

      The only question that should be asked is “can Zionism survive without its brutal and cruel and apartheid Occupation of fellow Semites”.

  22. RoHa
    RoHa
    October 20, 2013, 8:48 pm

    If Jews cannot exist without Israel* as a Jewish supremacist state, then Jews should cease to exist. This does not, of course, imply mass slaughter of Jews, but simply that they stop being Jews.

    (*Though they seemed to have managed without Israel for centuries.)

    • ziusudra
      ziusudra
      October 21, 2013, 2:30 am

      Greetings RoHa,
      …..Though they seemed to have managed w/o Israel for centuries……

      Conjectually Moses dies ‘on the road’ to Canaan; Joshua leads them on.
      ooopps, instead of going no. east to the Oil Fields of SA, they go due North.
      They weren’t very bright.
      Beginning in 1880AD / 1945AD, they start leaving Europe, but ignore the ‘Homeland’ even though they had been greeting eachother since 200BC
      in Europe with: Next year in Palestine! They have loved B’klyn ever since!
      ziusudra
      PS Sorry, one was even on the Mayflower in 1621AD

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 21, 2013, 6:42 am

        PS Sorry, one was even on the Mayflower in 1621AD

        The Jews, Marranos, and Conversos were already here. They had obtained refuge in the Americas in the 1500s, when they were exiled from Catholic Spain and Portugal. The oldest continuously active congregation in the USA was transplanted in New Amsterdam from Brazil in 1654. http://www.sephardicstudies.org/csiap.html

      • MRW
        MRW
        October 23, 2013, 11:13 am

        PS Sorry, one was even on the Mayflower in 1621AD

        The first Jews that left Spain generally went to Portugal first until the King of Portugal kicked them out as well. So they went to Amsterdam in the Netherlands, then the NYC of Europe. From there, 12 families sailed for Curaçao, bringing commercial trade business, and a thriving slave industry with them. (The Dutch were the main slave traders in Europe. It was Timbuktu to Amsterdam, in cahoots with rich Black Africans who bribed chiefs in small villages to send them strong bodies.)

        This site used to tell the story but she’s removed it for other information.

        If you know anyone who is Sephardic, this is a great site to know about. De Marchena, and her mother before her, visited every synagogue and Jewish graveyard from Recife, Brazil to Montreal. De Marchena took over in 1999, but her mother did the genealogy for either 30 or 40 years before that.

        One of the families, Curiel, dates from 1587. De Marchena claimed in a previous incarnation of this site that Jewish families would land in Curaçao, then go to Recife, and other Caribbean and North American destinations, which she determined from the birth, marriage, and death records.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 23, 2013, 1:50 pm

        Many ancient noble families in Portugal have Jewish ancestry.

  23. Ludwig
    Ludwig
    October 20, 2013, 10:31 pm

    Can the French survive without France? The Swedish without Sweden? Probably not.

    • justicewillprevail
      justicewillprevail
      October 21, 2013, 5:46 am

      Can the apple survive without being a pear? Probably, in fact definitely.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      October 21, 2013, 6:13 am

      Can the French survive without France? The Swedish without Sweden? Probably not.

      So you’ve never heard about the French people of Quebec or the Jewish federations operating in all of the major Jewish communities of North America? Right . . .

      You could visit examples of most of the 19th century European ethnic communities without ever leaving Kansas. I personally like to visit the many annual festivals, like the Czech festival in Wilson Kansas or the Svensk Hyllningsfest in Lindsborg, Kansas: “Little Sweden U.S.A.

      P.S. You do realize that there is no need to establish your own state and dominate all of the other ethnic groups living in your area in order to enjoy yourself?

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 6:25 am

        / French people of Quebec/
        Are living in a state like autonomous region in a legal frame work that allows them to retain their distinct culture.
        And btw i just asked a friend of mine form Quebec how they self identify and it’s not French it’s Quebecois .

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 21, 2013, 6:46 am

        “i just asked a friend of mine form Quebec how they self identify and it’s not French it’s i just asked a friend of mine form Quebec how they self identify and it’s not French it’s Quebecois ”

        Your friend is a twit. The French-speaking segment identifies itself as French-Canadian and a smaller group of marginals among it calls itself “Quebecois”. Mostly all others including Anglos, Arabs and Jews that make up 20% of the province’s population refer to themselves as Canadians.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 7:11 am

        Québécois (pronounced [kebekwa] ( listen); feminine: Québécoise (pronounced [kebekwaz] ( listen)), Quebecois (fem.: Quebecoise),[1] or Québecois (fem.: Québecoise)[2] is a word used primarily to refer to a French-speaking native or inhabitant of the Canadian province of Quebec.[3][4][5][6][7][8] It can refer to French spoken in Quebec. It may also be used, with an upper or lower case initial, as an adjective relating to Quebec, or to the French culture of Quebec.[9] A resident or native of Quebec is usually referred to in English as a Quebecer or Quebecker.[10] In French, Québécois or Québécoise usually refers to any native or resident of Quebec.[11][12] Its use became more prominent in the 1960s as French Canadians from Quebec increasingly self-identified as Québécois.[12]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois_(word)

        I think i will go with my friends opinion.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 21, 2013, 7:34 am

        Are living in a state like autonomous region in a legal frame work that allows them to retain their distinct culture.

        That same Canadian constitutional and cultural framework guarantees the rest of the population of the province equal rights.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 7:48 am

        Irrelevant to the subject at hand which was i remind you can the French
        survive without France .The example you gave was Quebec which is also a sort of a state that ensures the French culture dominance in a given territory.
        So no you haven’t proven that the French can exist as people without the backing of the French state.

        Louisiana was also a French colony once.How French is it now ?

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 21, 2013, 8:02 am

        >> Are living in a state like autonomous region …

        Semi-autonomous would be a better descriptor.

        >> … in a legal frame work that allows them to retain their distinct culture.

        And many Canadians are baffled by that. Italians and Croatians – among others – in Canada manage to maintain their distinct cultures just fine without special legal status.

        >> And btw i just asked a friend of mine form Quebec how they self identify and it’s not French it’s Quebecois.

        Tu as raison.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 8:58 am

        Irrelevant to the subject at hand which was i remind you can the French
        survive without France .The example you gave was Quebec which is also a sort of a state that ensures the French culture dominance in a given territory.
        So no you haven’t proven that the French can exist as people without the backing of the French state.

        Louisiana was also a French colony once.How French is it now ?

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 21, 2013, 10:47 am

        In the 60s French Canadians went with the slogan “Maintenant ou jamais, Maîtres chez nous ” in a subdued Prague Spring movement sort of way that was called “La Révolution tranquille”. Back then, neither you nor your confused friend had been born. Tell him to get his history from sources other than wiki.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 10:53 am

        http://bilan.usherbrooke.ca/bilan/pages/evenements/20947.html

        How does it negate my argument exactly ?

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 10:56 am

        http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9volution_tranquille

        The Quiet Revolution refers to a period in the history of contemporary Quebec composed mainly the years of the 1960s . It is especially characterized by a shift of the Quebec government that adopts the principles of the welfare state , the establishment of a true separation of the Catholic Church and the state, and the construction of a new Quebec’s national identity, which departs from traditional nationalism French-Canadian.

        Quevecois like i argued before.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 21, 2013, 12:08 pm

        rrelevant to the subject at hand which was i remind you can the French
        survive without France .The example you gave was Quebec which is also a sort of a state that ensures the French culture dominance in a given territory.

        The fact is that two referendums on sovereignty failed. It’s your nonsensical talk about the dominance of French culture in a territory that’s irrelevant bullshit. After all, we are talking about the physical survival of the French people, not states. The Canadians aren’t trying to eradicate the French people from their polity.

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 21, 2013, 12:49 pm

        “The Canadians aren’t trying to eradicate the French people from their polity.”

        They tried, Hostage, from the inception of BNA Act of 1867 up to the 1962 kick-off of Quebec’s quiet revolution, only it wasn’t Canadians doing a number on the French people of Canada but the Canadian “Anglos” colonialists. The English weren’t trying to eradicate the French people in the manner the Israelis have been trying to do to the Palestinians, but were trying to extinguish the French-Canadian language and culture by offering them to assimilate or capitulate. The French-Canadians refused both for almost 100 years and finally won their battle over the English for the survival of their language and culture in 1976.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 21, 2013, 1:23 pm

        The English weren’t trying to eradicate the French people in the manner the Israelis have been trying to do to the Palestinians, but were trying to extinguish the French-Canadian language and culture by offering them to assimilate or capitulate.

        That’s not a real threat to human survival. In any event the languages and cultures of empires like Rome, Spain, France, and even ancient Israel have been preserved, studied, and maintained by other peoples for centuries.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 21, 2013, 2:28 pm

        Roman Catholics enjoy access to highest levels of wealth and power in Canada. Is Israel, Christians and Muslims do not have any equivalent access.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 21, 2013, 2:30 pm

        French Canadians are Canadians.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 4:22 pm

        Nobody talked about human survival.
        Except you. The original question was could the French survive as a people without France.
        And the answer to that is no probably not. Quebec just proves the point the French Canadians/Quebecois retained their unique national identity (though it developed differently than in France) because they wouldn’t
        give up on their rights as a people in a limited form of autonomy.

        / In any event the languages and cultures of empires like Rome, Spain, France, and even ancient Israel have been preserved, studied, and maintained by other peoples for centuries./

        The Roman culture and language is all but gone so are the Romans
        what are you talking about.
        Study of a language and culture does not preserve a people.
        That’s like saying that by dissecting and studying a cadaver we keep the deceased alive.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 21, 2013, 5:35 pm

        and the construction of a new Quebec’s national identity, which departs from traditional nationalism French-Canadian.

        Quevecois like i argued before.

        It’s a distinction that makes no difference. They are still part of the French people and they have rejected sovereignty (so far). So, they don’t have their own state.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 21, 2013, 6:07 pm

        The example you gave was Quebec which is also a sort of a state that ensures the French culture dominance in a given territory.

        Canada is a federal state with no legal obligation to ensure French “cultural dominance” anywhere. Arguing that Québécois aren’t French people is like arguing that New York Sephardim aren’t Jewish people. You claim the Québécois can get by with mere autonomy or a “sort of state”. The Ottoman Jewish communities had autonomy, synagogues, schools, and courts that exercised jurisdiction over the status of community members, their property and their taxes. Why do we need a Jewish state?

      • Eurosabra
        Eurosabra
        October 21, 2013, 6:15 pm

        So there can be a linguistically-bound, Catholic-heritage supra-national “French people” that does not require unity of place of birth, of passport, of “race”? But not a Jewish one bound by religion, language of liturgy, and nationhood?
        The Jewish people, a nation among nations, send their best. Hypocrites.

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 21, 2013, 6:28 pm

        “It’s a distinction that makes no difference. They are still part of the French people and they have rejected sovereignty (so far). So, they don’t have their own state.”

        They already have their own state (province) and have had it since the early 1800s but it was under the total dominion of the British. Even after the confederation of the provinces that started in 1867, of which Quebec was one of the original member provinces, the British dominion and later the Canadian English one continued on in Quebec for a hundred years to the chagrin of the majority Franco-Canadians that referred to the Anglos as the “Maudits Anglais” (the accursed English). During those years of Anglo dominance, the French attempted a few uprisings but they all failed. The French nationalist wave really took off in 1962 with the Quebec Liberal Party and the movement culminated in 1976 with the victory of the French separatist Parti Quebecois in 1976 that lost the 2 referendums pertaining to the secession of the Province of Quebec from the Canadian Confederation, as you noted. When the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976, the first law it passed was one that enshrined French as the official and primary language of the province, of the place of work, of education, of all public signage, of communication, etc. Although still part of the English-majority English Canada, the now French-dominated autonomous province of Quebec makes it effectively the state of the French-Canadians. You have the same basic arrangement in the newly created Kurdistan al-Iraq.

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 21, 2013, 6:43 pm

        “Canada is a federal state with no legal obligation to ensure French “cultural dominance” anywhere.”

        Canada as a confederacy is not under any law to ensure French dominance anywhere in Canada but it is under law (thanks to Canada’s greatest Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau) to ensure that the government provides all services in the 2 official languages of the country, which are English and French making bilingualism official. In other words, government broadcasts or official announcements are made in both languages and signage on foodstuffs throughout the country has to be in both languages. Federal government offices throughout the country must have bilingual staff ready to answer queries in both languages.

        The day will soon come when a similar law would be passed in Israel. Meanwhile Israel is busy eradicating all signage, street names and anything else in Arabic. Israeli mentality on co-habitation between the different cultures is so different from the one in Canada.

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 21, 2013, 7:10 pm

        “Arguing that Québécois aren’t French people …”

        Of course they are. The current 6.5 million French-Canadians are in most part descendants of French colonial settlers that first began arriving in Canada in 1534. Montreal is the world’s second largest French city. Today’s French-Canadian language is spoken as it was in 17th and 18th century rural France. The 1990 census in the US showed that there were over 13 million Americans of French origin, of which 2 million speak the French language regularly (Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Louisiana).

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 21, 2013, 7:22 pm

        “… and the construction of a new Quebec’s national identity, which departs from traditional nationalism French-Canadian.”

        Basically, the only difference between the old and the new nationalism, which you haven’t grasped, was that in the new, religion lost its front row seat and was made to sit at the back of the room.

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 21, 2013, 7:34 pm

        “Roman Catholics enjoy access to highest levels of wealth and power in Canada.”

        In predominately Catholic French Quebec, the big financiers were mostly Protestant Anglos and Jews. In the 9 other provinces where the people are mostly Anglos, there too the financial power is mostly with the Protestants and Jews.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 21, 2013, 7:36 pm

        They already have their own state (province) and have had it since the early 1800s but it was under the total dominion of the British.

        No they’ve never had a state of their own or had any control over the demographics of the province, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Quebec#Ethnic_origin

        So they still have a non-French speaking population that shares the territory and the same constitutional rights.

      • Dutch
        Dutch
        October 21, 2013, 7:42 pm

        ‘Can the French survive without France?’ – was the original question. I guess they can. But the point is hazy. Exactly what should survive?

        An example: in South-Africa, Brasil and the US you can find towns or large communities whose inhabitants still consider themselves Dutch after hundreds of years. Their shared history, culture and language are intact – even ‘Dutcher than Dutch’. Would that do for an acceptable answer to the question?

        Another point is that Oleg just now added ‘as a people’. What does that mean? Jews certainly didn’t survive ‘as a people’ — on the contrary: they ceased to exist as such long ago. Nevertheless they survived as a religious or cultural group, among them all sorts of non-related Europeans, Arabs, Berbers, etc. Even Iranians.

        From that respect I wonder why anyone would question the survival of the French culture or heritage outside (or without) France. It already does — quite fundamentally even –, without the backing of the French state.

        But why bother discussing the French? The more interesting debate is if the state of Israel is a blessing or a risk for worldwide Jewry? I say it’s a huge risk. Can Jews survive without a state of Israel? Perfectly. Can they survive with a state of Israel? Doubtful.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 21, 2013, 7:44 pm

        Things have been changing, Walid. But yes, part of the resentment of French Canadians was in decades past, based on large econbomic disparity between Protestants (and Jews), and RCs.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 21, 2013, 7:51 pm

        “Canada is a federal state with no legal obligation to ensure French “cultural dominance” anywhere.” . . . Canada as a confederacy is not under any law to ensure French dominance anywhere in Canada.

        I don’t have any personal axe to grind either way. The government of Canada maintains its own web page on the subject with the html title tag: Why Canada has a federal system of government – About Canadian Federalism. http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?doc=why-pourquoi-eng.htm&lang=eng&page=federal&sub=why-pourquoi

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 21, 2013, 8:17 pm

        ‘“Arguing that Québécois aren’t French people …”

        Of course they are.’

        Of course they aren’t. They are Canadians. French people hold French citizenship and usually are born in France and brought up in France.

        Speaking French, even as a first language, does not make someone French, just as speaking English does not make someone English. Half the Belgians, a fair number of Swiss, and an awful lot of various types of Africans speak French.

        Being a descendant of French people does not make one French, just as being a descendant of English people does not make one English. Americans, Australians, Canadians, etc., of English ancestry are not English. They are Americans, Australians, Canadians, etc. And especially etc.

        Or are you prepared to say that we are all Kenyans/Angolans, since it seems that our ancestors were Kenyan /Angolans? (And, of course, have a right to go and set up a state in Kenya or Angola.)

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 21, 2013, 8:17 pm

        “No they’ve never had a state of their own or had any control over the demographics of the province…”

        If you are referring to them having full autonomous control as the Israelis have over Israel, no they don’t, but if you are referring to them being in majority, yes, they do and they have had it since the 1500s although as I noted, they were under the dominion or dominance of the British and then by the Anglo-Canadians after the British packed and left.

        When a majority can enact a law enshrining its own language as the French-Canadians did with their Charter of the French Language or Bill 101 and force the English and other minorities to translate all their operating manuals from English to French or to learn the French language and to use it in the workplace, you can safely assume that they have their own state. The same for the 2 referundums that took place to split from Canada. Getting to the stage of holding a plebiscite on such a sentive issue also shows how much control they hold. As to those referundums that the ultra nationalists lost, in both instances the overall results were very narrow in spite of almost 100% of the 20% non-Francophone voters voting to remain within Canada, which indicate that the French-Canadian voters were in a slight majority for the split.

        The non-Francophone segment of the population does not share in the same constitutional rights in that they cannot send their kids to an English school unless certain criteria is met; they have to send them to French schools. And similarly to Saudi Arabia that has a moralities police roaming the streets for delinquents, the province has a language police that roam the streets and the workplaces to ensure that the dominant language displayed or in use is French.

        As to control over its demographics, Quebec is the only province that has the final say on immigrants after they have been screened and approved by the federal government. Quebec’s preference is to have French-speaking immigrants (France, Belgium, Haiti, North Africa etc) to maintain the dominance of the French language.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 21, 2013, 8:27 pm

        “So no you haven’t proven that the French can exist as people without the backing of the French state.”

        Accepting, for the moment, the dubious idea of the French as “a people”, would it matter if they ceased to exist?

        And would it matter if the Jews ceased to exist “as a people”?

        You might say “French/Jewish culture would be lost”.

        Tough. Cultures get lost. “Peoples” change and assimilate.

        Human beings devise cultures as a way of organizing their lives. The aim is to make life better. Cultures have no value beyond that, and when a culture is an obstacle to a better life, that culture should be changed or abandoned.

        Most cultures do change or merge with other cultures. No doubt some good customs are lost in the process, but also bad ones. And it happens anyway. (It seem to me that more harm is done by artificially trying to “preserve” cultures than by letting them go. Why burden children with the task?)

        Why is it so important to preserve Jewish culture, or for the Jewish “people” to survive as a distinct “people”? Suppose, for the moment, that this afternoon all Jews were to say “Blow this. I’m going to forget all this Jewish stuff and assimilate completely.” What terrible effects would there be?

        Would War, Plague, Famine, and Bad Grammar sweep across the world? Would continents crack and comets rain from the sky? Would beer and chocolate lose their taste?

        Or would the human race – including the ex-Jews and their children – carry on as usual, trying to live better lives?

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 21, 2013, 9:00 pm

        @OlegR “Irrelevant to the subject at hand which was i remind you can the French survive without France”

        The subject at hand is not the topic per Ludwig’s whataboutery

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 22, 2013, 4:40 am

        Being a descendant of French people does not make one French

        You are simply being argumentative.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 22, 2013, 5:59 am

        So there can be a linguistically-bound, Catholic-heritage supra-national “French people” that does not require unity of place of birth, of passport, of “race”? But not a Jewish one bound by religion, language of liturgy, and nationhood?
        The Jewish people, a nation among nations, send their best. Hypocrites.

        I don’t claim that the French people are bound by nationhood. They are merely a minority ethnic group in many cases. The same thing applies to Jews, who really don’t share common religious beliefs, liturgy, or nationality.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 22, 2013, 7:48 am

        The original question was could the French survive as a people without France.

        The French people don’t share a common nationhood any more that the Anglo-Saxon people do. Neither will perish from the earth because a state (or two or three) becomes defunct.

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 22, 2013, 8:41 am

        “So there can be a linguistically-bound, Catholic-heritage supra-national “French people” that does not require unity of place of birth, of passport, of “race”? But not a Jewish one bound by religion, language of liturgy, and nationhood?”

        You guys are so intent on not getting it. Nobody here has questioned the right of the Jews to pitch their tent wherever they wanted; the problem is about those Jews that did it at the expense of dispossessing another people that inhabited the land they stole for their nationalistic project.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 22, 2013, 2:25 pm

        And Canadians are Canadians, whether RC, Protestant, Hindu, etc etc.

    • Walid
      Walid
      October 21, 2013, 6:57 am

      “Can the French survive without France? The Swedish without Sweden? Probably not.”

      Are you talking about the French language or the French people?

      • Ludwig
        Ludwig
        October 21, 2013, 12:56 pm

        Both

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 22, 2013, 8:10 am

        “Both”

        Ludwig, the French-Canadians are direct descendants of the French colons. Loyalty to the mother country remained strong during the first 200 years but in 1763 at the close of the Seven Years’ War between the French and the British, France more or less dropped the French in Canada like a hot potato, left them on their own and to the mercy of the British. Loyalty to France consequently fizzed out but the French clung to their language, religion and culture. So French as a language did survive without a mother-country.

        As a people, without a mother-country to turn to, the French evolved into a new people with a new identity and began referring to themselves as French-Canadians. For over a hundred years, British imperialism tried without success to eradicate the French language and culture until the French finally won over the English in 1976 with the enactment of the Charter of the French Language. So even without France, the French in Canada survived although with a slight modification. Today, French-Canadians feel a closer affinity to their American neighbours than to France or any other European country.

        Now other countries, especially France, at risk of seeing their national language and culture eroded are looking at what Quebec did in 1976 to save its own with the simple passing of a language law that had been inspired by consummer protection laws that had been the rage at that time.

        This takes us back full circle to what Shingo said about Judaism having survived for centuries without an Israel having been around, and that it will continue to survive for many more after Zionist-Israel will have become part of past history.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      October 21, 2013, 12:55 pm

      “Can the French survive without France? The Swedish without Sweden?”

      Can the Kurds survive without a Kurdistan? Can the Sudanese survive without an ethnic state? The Tatars? The Roma and Sinti?

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      October 21, 2013, 4:15 pm

      Jews survived without Israel fine before 1948. Therefore Judaism has nothing to do with Israel.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 4:23 pm

        What was is not what is and not what will be but thanks for your concern.
        Are you Jewish btw ?

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 21, 2013, 5:47 pm

        “Jews survived without Israel fine before 1948. Therefore Judaism has nothing to do with Israel.”

        Exactly, Shingo, but what is that Zionism is doing to Judaism and why is desperately working at drawing Jews away from it and into Zionism to overwhelm the void previously occupied by their faith, their rabbi, their synagogue and the rest of the things related to their Judaism? At times I feel the that the Zionist rumble is more between it and Judaism than with Palestinians.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 22, 2013, 5:26 am

        Walid i am so touched by your concern for Judaism
        rest assured it’s fine.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        October 22, 2013, 5:37 am

        Judaism will survive, Oleg.

        Zionism will not. No country in all of history has ever been able to coercively maintain an ethno-religious majority.

        America will soon lose it’s ‘White’ majority and in time, so will the Jewish racist majority.

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 22, 2013, 7:26 am

        “Walid i am so touched by your concern for Judaism
        rest assured it’s fine.”

        Judaism is important, Oleg, because it was the source of the other 2 great religions. Without it, Chritianity and Islam could have evolved into something completely different, if at all and between all three, they include half the world’s humanity. And no, it’s not fine because Zionism is slowly eating away at it in just about the same manner that Israel is eating away at what rightfully belong to another people. A simpler way of defining it is to simply call it a “cancer”.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 22, 2013, 2:27 pm

        “Racist” majority? Or religiously discriminatory majority, in favor of Jews?

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      October 21, 2013, 7:57 pm

      “Can the French survive without France? The Swedish without Sweden? Probably not.”

      Can the Israelis survive without Israel. Probably not. But the Jews can.

      • yrn
        yrn
        October 22, 2013, 10:09 am

        Roha
        “Israeli Jews” define themselves as one = Israeli’s
        For Israeli Jews being Israeli and being Jews is the same thing.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        October 22, 2013, 1:55 pm

        There is the rub: you in effect argue that a Christian is not an Israeli, even if he or she is an Israeli.

    • MRW
      MRW
      October 23, 2013, 11:17 am

      Can Catholics survive without the Vatican?

  24. Marco
    Marco
    October 20, 2013, 10:33 pm

    Sheldon Adelson (born 1933) is 80 years old.

    He’s devoting millions of dollars and enormous time and energy to defending, what he perceives to be, the interests of Israel as the Jewish state.

    I think the psychology here is interesting and worth contemplating.

    People in their twilight years can devote themselves to something – Israel or the survival of the Jews as a people – that will outlive themselves.

    Whereas Christianity and Islam focus on the afterlife, here we have an orientation towards the potential immortality of an entire people.

    It’d be silly to dismiss the emotional value that this mission has to people like Adelson. It’s a shame that their need for meaning and a lasting legacy has to come at the expense of other people, especially the Palestinians.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      October 21, 2013, 5:09 am

      Marco
      A norm in Nazi thinking was that the Jewish religion differed from other religions because it was an “earth-based religion.”

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      October 22, 2013, 5:41 am

      It does seem like Christianity and Islam are more concerned about the next phase of life and are more spiritual. Although I think Evangelical Christianity is definitely ‘Earthly’ in some sense (because all those tele-evangelists are super rich). Islam has too many internal problems as well as many external pressures to simply ‘be’.

      Judaism as practiced by Zionist Jews (and not Judaism in and of itself) seems to be more Earthly bound. But Judaism is in a Golden Age and the political capital it has is wasted (but also sustained) by Zionism.

      Personally, I think that’s better (the Earthly bound) because we live here and now and our actions matter now. Except that Zionism is also nationalism and exclusive and racist, so it’s like the very worst end of the spectrum for that ‘Earthly bound’ concern.

      One way would be to help other people and be selfless or be empathetic. The Zionist way is to lie/cheat/steal and put yourself and your tribe above the people you live on top of.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 23, 2013, 8:38 am

        Judaism as practiced by Zionist Jews (and not Judaism in and of itself) seems to be more Earthly bound. But Judaism is in a Golden Age and the political capital it has is wasted (but also sustained) by Zionism.

        From a secular standpoint, there are other examples of ancient literature that consist of stories with fictional elements that are intended to point us to some ultimate truth. When we examine the literature of the ancient Jews and Israelites, what is the moral of the story?

        Don’t be covenant breakers, keep your promises. Pride goes before a fall. The scriptures and the historical interpretive accounts of the Sages and Josephus tell us that Jews were exiled because they had become too schismatic and ethnocentric. They nursed grudges and hatred against others without a cause. The society had become dysfunctional. The Priests had made themselves rulers and exacted forced payments from the peasantry. The most zealous Jews became lawless highway robbers. There was no group cohesion because the leadership and judges were corrupt and withheld justice from the members of society who were poor, orphaned, widowed, or of alien origin. Sound familiar?

        From the very outset, the Zionists pledged to “reconstitute” their home in accordance with the rules of public international law. But they winked and crossed their fingers behind their backs when it came time to observe their obligation to respect equality under law for all, without regard to race, religion, language, or sex. They decided instead to recreate a Zionist state and society in the exact image of the ancient ones. It should come as no surprise that it’s a disaster.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        October 23, 2013, 3:11 pm

        But Zionism does have leadership.

        Israel and Zionism is something for Jews to rally around to feel ‘Jewish’ (circular logic; we feel Jewish because Israel told us it’s the State for the Jewish people, why is that? because it’s Israel; since it boils down to religion and other mendacious logic).

      • MRW
        MRW
        October 23, 2013, 11:40 am

        Cliff: Islam has too many internal problems as well as many external pressures to simply ‘be’.

        What problems and pressures? The shit we’re told? Islam doesn’t have a priestcraft; Islam is a relationship a person has with a book that describes right action in order to emulate God (Allah). Christianity and Judaism have priestcrafts, a hierarchy of holier-than-thou’s that naturally see their power on a par with the King or state, where the action is (Borgia, Umberto), and rumble and connive for it. Their jobs are to dupe and deceive the masses into helping them maintain that power through belief, superstition, and adherence to their definitions of the good books. And forking over money.

        All the Islamic sects are the result of a group of Muslims declaring this or that passage in the Koran means X, which is why you got the tribal Wahhabis in the now-Saudi desert coming up with their strict off-the-wall version 200 years ago, and why they hated the educated urbane Sufis (or did until they tried to make peace about eight years ago). But there’s no grand poo-bah. You can be a practicing full-on Muslim without ever setting foot in a mosque. There are over 2.1 billion Muslims worldwide, and the Pew Forum projected two years ago that they would be 24.9% of the population by 2030. So what do we do? We base our foreign policy on demonizing Muslims and attacking countries with major Muslim populations, like Iraq, because as some Bush admin official admitted within the last week, “Iraq? We just wanted to kick some ass.”

        And we think that being American means we’re so exceptional we will never have to suffer consequences.

  25. NickJOCW
    NickJOCW
    October 21, 2013, 5:21 am

    There has been a falling off from general acceptance of the mythopoeic content of most religions since the 17th century. This doesn’t need to affect the social or cultural elements of a religion which are able to continue quite happily and be actively supported by those increasingly devoid of abstract theological convictions. The process, which is not peculiar to Judaism, tends to push diehards towards levels of defensive extremism which can seem threatening until the extremists lose their teeth and claws and appear merely eccentric. What is often overlooked when considering this process logically is how natural it is for us to sustain two or more mutually exclusive views about almost anything. Indeed, if you think about it, we would probably self destruct if we couldn’t.

  26. OlegR
    OlegR
    October 21, 2013, 6:17 am

    Like it or not what glued the Jews together over the centuries of the Golah was the religion (and the hostile to them outside world).
    The secular movements of Jews a relatively new phenomena established the state of Israel which allows and supports a Jewish life and culture that are not necessarily predicated by religion.

    The secular Jewish diaspora having lost the religion as a binding force and without having the nation state that supports their kind of Judaism( a Jewish culture
    language etc.) are understandably intermingle with the dominant cultures of their states and will probably slowly disappear as a distinct people unless they find a new and distinct common goal or some calamity will force them together again.

    So yes Israel right now is the main anchor for the secular Jews in the diaspora to their Jewishness and it will become even more so in the years to come at least
    for those that wish to retain their Jewishness.

    Phillip for example does not as far as i can tell not in any meaningful sense.
    Though come to think of it his obsession with Israel could be looked as meaningful
    way to engage with his Judaism however misguided it may look to me.
    So maybe there is hope for him yet.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      October 21, 2013, 7:27 am

      Like it or not what glued the Jews together over the centuries of the Golah was the religion (and the hostile to them outside world).

      Nope, even the Jewish scriptures portray the majority of Jews as idolators, adulterous unbelievers, covenant breakers, & etc. Only a few were described as “the faithful remnant” – and even they adopted many rules that plainly contradict the laws contained in the ancient scriptures.

      So, the only thing that has held the Jews together is tribalism. Many other cultures employ rites of initiation, shunning of outsiders, and intermarriage among members of the group as methods of concentrating accumulated wealth and power in the hands of their family or clan members.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 8:28 am

        Judaism in the Golah as we know it was based on Halaha that was based on the scriptures the Jews you are talking about are Jews of the scriptures so you are as usual wrong and irrelevant.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 22, 2013, 6:52 am

        Judaism in the Golah as we know it was based on Halaha that was based on the scriptures the Jews you are talking about are Jews of the scriptures so you are as usual wrong and irrelevant.

        Well “the Jews of the scriptures” are the nation that Zionists try to portray as our ancient connection to Palestine. The Torah and the prophets don’t portray the majority as being a devoutly religious bunch.

        You are not living in the Golah, and your State religious authorities won’t permit you to fulfill positive commandments contained in the Torah, e.g. Elimelech Westreich , “LEVIRATE MARRIAGE IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL” (February 2008). Tel Aviv University Law Faculty Papers. Working Paper 65.
        http://law.bepress.com/taulwps/art65

        And which Jewish scriptures are you referring to Hostage?

        The Torah and the Prophets.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 22, 2013, 7:34 am

        you are talking about are Jews of the scriptures so you are as usual wrong and irrelevant.

        BTW, I don’t see how it can be “irrelevant” when the Torah itself ordained the subsequent exiles on the very grounds that I described above. The Rabbis also employed the progressive development of the Halakhah on the common law subject of tribal inheritance of wealth ( see Numbers 27 through 38 the Daughters of Zelophechad and the men from Manasseh) to justify their own evolutionary changes. The Halakhah still takes into account things, like the ceremonial tribal functions of the Levites and the rules against a Kohenim marrying a gentile or a convert.

        Those are key elements of Jewish mythology. The Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, et al also commented at length about the non-devout and backsliding character of leadership and much of the population of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah. That idea doesn’t originate with me.

      • miriam6
        miriam6
        October 21, 2013, 6:02 pm

        [email protected]:

        Again with the demeaning and misanthropic view of Judaism.
        You seem unable to believe or accept that faith in God was instrumental in maintaining Jewish communities for one thing.
        Also you are unable to accept the idea of Jewish communities as in any way healthy instead portraying Judaism in a reductive manner – as mere tribalism as well as merely a vehicle for money and power grubbing.

        How insulting of you.

        And which Jewish scriptures are you referring to Hostage?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 22, 2013, 2:53 am

        “the idea of Jewish communities as in any way healthy”

        Without wishing to suggest that Jewish communities are not or cannot be healthy, can I ask you to point out those ways in which they are healthy?
        (This will require a definition of “healthy”, of course.)

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        October 22, 2013, 6:24 am

        Again with the demeaning and misanthropic view of Judaism.
        You seem unable to believe or accept that faith in God was instrumental in maintaining Jewish communities for one thing.

        It didn’t say anything demeaning or misanthropic. I just think that any time the majority of the members of a Jewish community claim to be secular and non-religious, you need something beside religion to explain group cohesion. That certainly applied to the General Jewish Labor Bund or the New Yishuv in Palestine. BTW, see the Jewish Federations of North America’s web page for the 2014 Tribefest: http://www.tribefest.org/

        FYI, we no longer live in the colonial era. Many indigenous societies around the globe are organized around notable families, tribes, or clans – and governed accordingly as a matter of popular sovereignty.

    • eljay
      eljay
      October 21, 2013, 11:06 am

      >> OlegR @ October 21, 2013 at 6:17 am

      What a wonderfully supremacist rant! “Jewish” is so special that:
      – it must never be permitted to die out naturally, even though there’s no harm in that (gawd forbid that “chosen” Jewish people should – of their own free will – intermingle with “ordinary” human beings and, as a result, be diminished!); and
      – the requirement for it to be preserved forever justifies – nay, it demands! – the existence of and unconditional support for an oppressive, colonialist, expansionsist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 22, 2013, 5:27 am

        You don’t care whether Jews exist or not eljay that’s fine.
        I do .

      • eljay
        eljay
        October 22, 2013, 7:31 am

        >> You don’t care whether Jews exist or not eljay that’s fine.
        >> I do .

        I care about the existence of justice, equality, kindness and respect for all people, everywhere. How it’s labelled doesn’t matter.

        You attach more importance to the label, and to your label’s alleged “right” to a supremacist state.

  27. OlegR
    OlegR
    October 21, 2013, 6:27 am

    Like it or not what glued the Jews together over the centuries of the Golah was the religion (and the hostile to them outside world).
    The secular movements of Jews a relatively new phenomena established the state of Israel which allows and supports a Jewish life and culture that are not necessarily predicated by religion.

    The secular Jewish diaspora having lost the religion as a binding force and without having the nation state that supports their kind of Judaism( a Jewish culture
    language etc.) are understandably intermingle with the dominant cultures of their states and will probably slowly disappear as a distinct people unless they find a new and distinct common goal or some calamity will force them together again.

    So yes Israel right now is the main anchor for the secular Jews in the diaspora to their Jewishness and it will become even more so in the years to come at least
    for those that wish to retain their Jewishness.

    Phillip for example does not as far as i can tell not in any meaningful sense.
    Though come to think of it his obsession with Israel could be looked as meaningful
    way to engage with his Judaism however misguided it may look to me.
    So maybe there is hope for him yet.

    • amigo
      amigo
      October 21, 2013, 7:25 am

      Say it often enough and YOU will believe it comrade.

    • Walid
      Walid
      October 21, 2013, 1:15 pm

      Nothing that has anything to do with Zionism makes any sense. I once asked someone that came from the American Midwest to a kibbutz on a Zionist-sponsored youth program in the 60s if today her Zionism was more important to her Judaism and her reply was that it was her Zionism. That’s when I realized that for a Jew to be saying that, Zionism had to be a cult. And sooner or later, cults all end up in the same manner.

      I think you you’ve got Phil figured wrong. He’s not obsessed with Israel as much as he is obsessed with what the cult of Zionism is doing to his Judaism.

  28. OlegR
    OlegR
    October 21, 2013, 4:28 pm

    I don’t think Phil figured out what his Judaism is besides a set of genes.

    Zionism more important then Judaism i assume you meant , right?
    Well that’s a very odd answer to me and i am sure it will for a lot of Israelis.
    Zionism is not at odds with Judaism (unless you listen to Naturei Karta)
    so it’s not either or question , both are important.
    There is no Zionism without Judaism and it is possible that it’s true vice versa.

    • talknic
      talknic
      October 21, 2013, 5:26 pm

      @ OlegR “Zionism is not at odds with Judaism”

      How strange. Judaism’s basic tenets forbid false accusation, lying and coveting other folk’s property

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 7:07 pm

        You should talk to Yossi Gurwitz i am sure he will be happy to explain everything to you.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 22, 2013, 8:05 am

        What’s to explain? Judaism’s basic tenets forbid false accusation, lying and coveting other folk’s property. The Zionist Federation/Movement has been complicit in trashing those tenets for more than 65 years

    • Walid
      Walid
      October 21, 2013, 5:30 pm

      Right; I meant to say that her Zionism was more important to her than her Judaism and her answer was very odd. My question came after a long back and forth discussion during which she said in so many other words that Zionism had been her oxygen and reason for living during her spiritual trip that had started right after high school when the Zionist labor youth “pionering” movement in Chicago that she had been part of with its weekly indoctrination and aliyah preparations meetings during her high school years arranged for her to leave her parents and live on a kibbutz as part of the journey. Truly cultish.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        October 21, 2013, 7:12 pm

        Sounds like you talked to a some unbalanced and impressionable person, i wouldn’t make any broad generalizations about Zionism out of this especially as a part of day to day life in Israel in the here and now.

      • Walid
        Walid
        October 22, 2013, 8:58 am

        “Sounds like you talked to a some unbalanced and impressionable person… ”

        She was a very nice and non-violent person that didn’t have problems dealing with Palestinians; she actually helped them each year with their olive harvest by donating 2 to 3 weeks of her time. But, she was contaminated by the Zionist virus from a very early age (15) when her parents had her participate in Labor- Zionist weekly meetings that whisked her off to a kibbutz when she finished high school. We stopped corresponding when I couldn’t stop needling her that she had bought a house in a town that was built on the ruins of the destroyed Palestinian village of Umm al-Farraj.

        Sounds like you had never heard of the American Labor-Zionist Pioneer Movement of the 60s. Zionist brainwashing at its best. I guess this must have been replaced by the Birthright program that has the same vocation.

  29. piotr
    piotr
    October 21, 2013, 7:28 pm

    Quite possibly in 50 years Jews in North America will be no more distinct from the rest of the population that the Irish or Scotch-Irish. The fact that those groups did not maintain separation etc. is not particularly tragic.

    One can make a good case that Jews as a group survived from Iron Age I period precisely because they adapted to diasporah and could size opportunities arising in different regions of the world, while their putative ancestral land was incorporated into states of Romans, Persians, Byzantines, Omayyadds, Fatimids, Mamluks and Ottomans (I surely skipped a few). Observe the contrast with Samaritans who never had a significant diaspora.

    I actually do not quite understand the teleology of Zionism. Should American Jews behave like elves in Lord of the Rings: depart on ships from the Middle Earth to be soundly forgotten afterwards? (They had an ancestral homeland on the other side of the oceans which was more “elevated”, closer to Gods, then their Middle Earth dwellings.) Afterwards the elven survival did not concern Middle Earthians at all.

    • OlegR
      OlegR
      October 21, 2013, 7:43 pm

      / The fact that those groups did not maintain separation etc. is not particularly tragic./
      Depends on who you ask though off course since we are talking about assimilation
      and not extermination there is a huge difference.

      /I actually do not quite understand the teleology of Zionism. Should American Jews behave like elves in Lord of the Rings: depart on ships from the Middle Earth to be soundly forgotten afterwards?/

      Zionism is not about American Jews it’s about Jews period.
      Making Alia is a personal choice of every Jew in the diaspora.
      Zionism is about letting them have that choice.

      I don’t think that elves Immortal Lands can be considered as another continent
      more of an afterlife i would say.

      • talknic
        talknic
        October 22, 2013, 8:16 am

        @ OlegR “Making Alia is a personal choice of every Jew in the diaspora.
        Zionism is about letting them have that choice.”

        To Israel. However settlement in non-Israeli territories acquired by war is illegal.

  30. piotr
    piotr
    October 21, 2013, 8:17 pm

    I tried to check more on Rav Schmuley, and I am shocked, shocked!

    I went to the website linked here on the top, http://www.thisworld.us/will_jews_exist_20131015

    and clicked “The World”, the next button after “Home”. On the menu we have “Thought of the day”. Daily cranial activity apparently stopped sometime in the middle of 2010, the last had no “reaction”, and the penultimate, “Principal vs popularity” had one reaction, Richard Cohen wrote “principle not principal”. More seriously, I concluded that brief laconic statements are not a form of expression most suited to Boteach temperament. Thus I clicked “Interviews” and the first one was with BiblEconomy.com where I have found what seems to me an anti-Zionist manifesto.

    The collapse of our economy was caused not by an economic crisis but a spiritual crisis called greed, where you become voracious and insatiable. I believe that the Jewish community, and the Jewish religion has unique values that need to be shared with the rest of the world that can address that crisis. And here’s why: because Christianity and Islam are global, enormous religions with about a billion followers each. What they focused on [historically] is how to create empires, how to govern with Christian law or Islamic law, these are very big macrocosmic questions. The Jews had no homeland, so what we focused on were the microcosmic questions. How do I learn not to be jealous of a friends’ success? How do I curb my tongue from gossip? How do we sustain marriages — passion — as an institution? How to we inspire children and get them to make good choices? Those are vehicles at which the Jewish community really excels and now is the time we need to hear those values.

    One can quibble about the content, for example, does the Jewish community excel at marriages? We can pick a random Jewish name, say, Perelman, and google “Perelman marriages”. But what picked my interest is the claim that Jews could contribute valuable perspective precisely because they did not have a homeland and concomitant preoccupation with empire, militarism, governing of a state with a religious law and so on.

  31. just
    just
    October 21, 2013, 9:48 pm

    The whole question is patently ridiculous. Of course Jews can exist without Israel.

    It’s laughable to pose the “question” in the USA. Go schmooze among yourselves somewhere else. This land is a land of immigrants. (and, yes, we did terrible things to the Native Americans and have thankfully abolished the practice of bringing unwilling, enslaved immigrants to our shores).

    These Zionist rabble- rousers need to get over themselves.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      October 22, 2013, 1:12 am

      “This land is a land of immigrants.”

      If, by “this land” you mean the US, you are stretching the facts a bit. From the latest figures I have seen, only about 13% of US residents are immigrants. The rest are natives.

      • Marco
        Marco
        October 22, 2013, 2:25 am

        His (obvious) point was that most Americans can be traced back to immigrants within the last couple centuries.

        By international standards, that makes the U.S. a land of immigrants.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        October 22, 2013, 2:46 am

        “His (obvious) point was that most Americans can be traced back to immigrants within the last couple centuries.”

        Obvious?

        “By international standards, that makes the U.S. a land of immigrants.”

        There is an international standard? If so, it is a silly standard which says that a country in which most of the population are natives is a country in which most of the population are not natives.

Leave a Reply