Why American Jews care deeply about Israel

[oberliner]

Excerpt:

Eventually, the need for a homeland, a safe haven and refuge that Jews could call our own, became all too apparent with the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust. Six million Jewish deaths at the hands of the Nazis destroyed any hope of Jewish safety in Europe or elsewhere.

Israel, founded in 1948, is that refuge and homeland. It is also our crucible for the continuing evolution of Jewish life and culture. Hebrew - which had ceased to be a spoken language for so long - is once again spoken on the street. Jewish children use the tongue of Abraham to play in the spaces once occupied by David and Solomon.

The Jewish calendar is lived fully - stores close on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, and the entire country shuts down on Yom Kippur, our high holy day. The worldwide Jewish community looks to Israel to unite us, to hold us together, to strengthen us as we face the challenges of assimilation and secularization. And in turn, we support Israel's efforts to welcome and integrate Jews from anywhere - the former Soviet Union, Ethiopia, Yemen, Argentina - places where Jewish life has ceased to be tenable.

Israel is a sacred place for me. I need this homeland to turn to, and I believe the American Jewish community is safer, richer and more alive because a vibrant Israel exists.

This is why it is so painful to see what is happening in this beloved land.

Of course, as someone so tied to the land and its place in my heritage, how could I deny others the same depth of emotional, historical and spiritual connections to the same land? Jew, Christian and Muslim, Arab and Israeli all look to this land for spiritual and actual sustenance.

I dream of a day when all can go up to the land and greet each other in peace.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2009/01/26/faith/4276954.txt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. This, I think, gets to the crux of the problem

Can Jews feel comfortable if Israel were to become a democracy acknowledging all who live in the area and giving all religious protection? Or do Jews feel that the nation must be exclusively Jewish in character? I can understand many Jews' reluctance to believe that a democracy involving many different religions would protect them and their faith.

Perhaps a two state solution is best--but how do you make it work?

[azurnoir]

2. Then I guess the qustion should be asked

do "Jews" living in the US feel "comfortable" living in a democrasy where all religions are protected or is it just a matter of time?I know we're not supposed to mention things like that but considering the subject matter of the article which kind of dances around that except to say

"Israel is a sacred place for me. I need this homeland to turn to, and I believe the American Jewish community is safer, richer and more alive because a vibrant Israel exists".

This kind of statement plays directly to the dual loyalty accusations directed towards American Jews

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. The Jews I know feel comfortable living here

but then they are all liberals, and have tended to marry outside their faith. This could be what frightens more conservative Jews--they are afraid of losing their identity as a people. But then I wonder why they don't just leave the US and go to Israel.

[azurnoir]

18. There is a "paradox" of sorts

in reality the biggest threat to Judaism is assimilation or intermarriage, not that I am promoting xenophobia of any sort, I am the product of one of those intermarriages, but with an estimated 13 million Jews world wide it is a thought.

[Mosby]

5. The ideal does not match reality

The US is a Christian nation, period.

I agree that the excerpt in your post is problematic. I don't see how the existence of Israel makes the US Jewish community more safe (or less for that matter). It certainly makes the "jewish experience" richer and more diverse, though.

[cali]

9. That's not entirely true.

It's more accurate to say that the U.S. is a majority Christian nation with a strong history of separation of church and state. It's not perfect, that history, but it's definitely a strong thread.

[Mosby]

14. Just my perspective from growing up in the US

Hell I couldn't even watch my new President get sworn in without listening to jesus this and jesus that.

The company I work for sends out a poster every x-mas that talks about "jesus christ" being a messiah to some and a philosopher to others. Of course the poster does not use his historical name, jesus of Nazareth. I sent an e-mail to the communications manager about the wording but they don't give a shit.

It just seems like US Christians take every opportunity to remind non-christian Americans that we are a minority and will always be in the minority. Furthermore, as long as US presidential inaugurations contain the words "jesus christ" I will continue to assert that the US is a Christian nation.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. I absolutely hear what you are saying, and also cringed at the

inauguration... the inclusion of scription in the inaugural address... blech.

I think of it in this way:

The US has a Christian character. While the majority are Christian, Christians don't have special rights; non-Christians are barred from nothing. This is absolutely not the case in Israel, where being Non-Jewish clearly makes you a second class citizen.

Lots of ethnic groups have love for the homeland: Italians and Irish come to mind immediately. But the reality is that in those places there is not massive persecution and oppression of indigenous people so that their American cousins can get glowy eyed when the think about it.

[cali]

17. oh please.

there is no codified discrimination of non-Jews in Israel- not the OTs- that bars them from anything. And yes, there is discrimination, just as there is here. For instance, there are no atheists in the federal gov, and precious few in state government. And the accusation that American Jews get "glowy eyed when they think about "massive persecution and oppression of indigenous people" is aburd and reflects some ugly thinking about an ethnic group on your part.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. You are sadly mistaken if you believe that laws are applied equally.

For but one example...

http://adalah.org/eng/jnf.php#news

[cali]

25. no, the law isn't always applied equally

and it's not here either. Ever hear of driving while black? Just a few years ago, a friend of my sister's was stopped near my mother's home and asked what he was doing in the neighborhood. Shockingly, the guy is black and the neighborhood is white and wealthy. That's hardly unusual. No, it's not as bad here in most places, but the law being applied unequally is not exclusive to Israel.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. Land purchase laws have discriminated against Arabs. No two ways about it. nt

While there may now be court challenges, past discrimination has been clear.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. My glowy-eyed comment is not related to persecution

but rather to having a homeland which is the expression of Jewish culture, etc.

Clearly and understandably, that is something many Jews feel pride in.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shaktimaan]

28. Wow!

Can Jews feel comfortable if Israel were to become a democracy acknowledging all who live in the area and giving all religious protection?

Well, I would think so considering that Israel is a democracy that acknowledges all who live in the area and gives them all religious protection.

Or do Jews feel that the nation must be exclusively Jewish in character?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never been there. Seriously, Israel is FAR from exclusively Jewish in character. Especially in terms of Judiasm, the religion. Most Israeli Jews are secular, their Jewish-ness isn't defined so much in religious terms as much as in national ones.

I can understand many Jews' reluctance to believe that a democracy involving many different religions would protect them and their faith.

Really? I wouldn't be able to. Luckily this reluctance doesn't exist. Israel is Jewish in the same way that France is French or Cambodia is Khmer. Not everyone who lives in Cambodia is ethnically Khmer. But they are all Cambodian, even ethnic Vietnamese.

Perhaps a two state solution is best--but how do you make it work?

Well, first you have to sell everyone on it.

[shaayecanaan]

34. So America is a Christian state? nt

[oberliner]

36. Are government offices open on Christmas?

How about on Sundays?

[Shaktimaan]

45. No, I don't think so at all. Do you not see the difference? np

[shaayecanaan]

51. Enlighten me nt

[Shaktimaan]

54. You're confusing religion with nationality.

For one thing, the US isn't a traditional nation-state, in terms of having its nationality defined primarily by an ethno-cultural nation of people. The US is a nation that's made up of immigrants, it's a melting pot. Almost everyone comes from somewhere else, and it wouldn't be considered the "homeland" of the American people. The US just differs completely from ethnically/culturally defined nation-states.

And while the US is a majority Christian country, Christianity is not our most defining national characteristic. For instance, if someone referred to the US as "The Christian State" it would not make any sense. Lots of states are Christian. No one has adopted "Christianity" as THE defining characteristic inherent to their nation.

Probably because Christianity is strictly a religion. There are no ethnic/cultural/tribal/national ideals attached to it as there are with Judaism. (Or Zoroastrianism, or Druze for examples of other religious nations.) Judaism is a nationality that happens to have a religion attached to it.

[shaayecanaan]

56. If you are simply referring to nationality...

then you can no more call Israel a "Jewish state" than you can call America a "white state", given that the minority populations in each state are about the same.

Will it still be permissible to call Israel a Jewish state when the Arab population approaches 30% (as seems inevitable)? What about 35%?

[Shaktimaan]

95. You lost me.

then you can no more call Israel a "Jewish state" than you can call America a "white state", given that the minority populations in each state are about the same.

"White" is NOT a nationality. "Jewish" IS a nationality. And what do the minority populations have to do with how a nation-state defines itself? You seem to be comparing an arbitrary trait of America's with a defining trait of Israel's, obviously to make a point, but I have no idea what it might be.

Will it still be permissible to call Israel a Jewish state when the Arab population approaches 30% (as seems inevitable)? What about 35%?

Permissible? Israel is a Jewish state because it has defined itself as such. Why would their having a large minority population suddenly alter that? Your reasoning could be applied to any state... if Japan's minority population reached 35% for some reason, would it suddenly cease to be a Japanese state?

[shaayecanaan]

98. It doesnt matter...

whether you call it race, ethnicity, or a flavour of ice cream. The fact is that Israel has an Arab minority of 20% which, all else being equal, will increase to 30%. A state with a minority of 35% is by definition a multi-ethnic state.

if Japan's minority population reached 35% for some reason, would it suddenly cease to be a Japanese state?

No, because those minority citizens would still be Japanese citizens (witness for example Japan's assimilation of the Ainu, Ryukyu Islanders and Koreans), in the same way that French-Moroccans are French and African-Americans are American. But Israel's Arab citizens will still be non-Jewish.

France may well define itself as a French state, but not as a Gallic state. Nor does Britain define itself as an Anglo-Saxon state or Germany as a Teutonic state. Were Britain to suddenly announce tomorrow it was "defining itself" as an Anglo-Saxon state, non-Anglo-Saxon citizens (including Jews, for instance) would probably feel excluded if not worried.

Israel can define itself as a Jewish state, in which case it is either a theocracy or an ethnocracy. However, it cannot simultaneously represent itself as being both a Jewish state and a republic (that is, a country of all its citizens) as long as it has a substantial Arab minority.

FWIW, countries with 30% minorities tend not to be very stable unless the state makes a significant attempt at rapproachment with the minority population. New Zealand, for example, has a 25% Maori/Islander population; however it has made a range of gestures both symbolic and substantive at inculcating a sense of New Zealand nationalism amongst that minority (for example, at state and sporting occasions the national Anthem is sung in both Maori and English).

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Good question?

How can any jew truly believe in the safety and security of Israel when the country appears to be inflicting a horrific aparthied regime on the Palestinians in addition to killing them by the truckload?

[burythehatchet]

6. It makes no sense because the entire construct is non sensical

The idea that a group of people were divinely ordained to have a set of rights above all others because their fairy tales are somehow deemed better than someone else's fairy tales is beyond me.

[Shaktimaan]

30. what are you talking about? np

[Shaktimaan]

29. Beats Poland. np

[GoesTo11]

7. As long as the world is still structured around nationalism

it helps to have a country. Life is crap for stateless peoples. It's even worse when that peoplehood -- as defined by others -- is based on religion.

Even though the US constitution protects freedom of religion, the danger lurks in the shadows. Our most recent president wondered for some time whether Jews just go to hell. During this same president's administration, some Muslim citizens may have also had the the feeling of being outsiders.

[aranthus]

8. The ignorance of the responses to this post is breathtaking and disturbing.

One poster asks, "Can Jews feel comfortable if Israel were to become a democracy acknowledging all who live in the area and giving all religious protection?" Another seems to liken Israel to the idea that the US is a Christian nation only. A third doesn't understand why Israel should exist just because the Bible says so. Not one of those posts is based on the truth. Especially on this board, where the facts are correctly stated daily, it's disturbing that there is such a continuing misunderstanding of Jews, Jewishness and Israel. Some facts.

1. Israel is already a democracy with religious protection for all minorities, and Jews feel quite comfortable there. They would undoubtedly feel more comfortable if the Palestinians and neighboring would give up trying to destroy the Jewish state, but then so would the Arabs, who would have peace, and the Palestinians, who would be able to have their own country.

2. The Jews are a nation. Nations are the groupings of people that are entitled to states of their own. France is the country of the French who are a nation which is mostly Catholic. So are the Italians. Germany is the country of the Germans, a nation that is mostly Protestant. The United States is the country of the American nation that is in part founded on Judeo-Christian values. Israel is the country of the Jews, a nation based on the Jewish value system.

3. The Bible is not the only or even the major justification for Israel's existence. Jews have historical, political and national claims to a state in Israel. Israel is where the Jewish people became the Jewish people thousands of years ago (that's why it's called the Jewish homeland). Jews have been living there continuously longer than any other group. The only indigenous independent states in the region have been Jewish. When Israel was created the majority nation in the the area of Israel was the Jews. So Israel is a Jewish state. France is a French state. The US is an American state.

Suggested reading:

"Jews, God and History" by Max I. Dimont
"The Course of Modern Jewish History" by Howard Morley Sachar
"A History of Zionism" by Walter Laqueur
"American Jews and the Zionist" Idea by Naomi Cohen
"Clues About Jews For People Who Aren't" by Sidney and Betty Jacobs
"The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism" and""Why the Jews?" both by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin

Some of these are college level works, but Jews, God and History, Clues about Jews, and the Prager/Telushkin books are popular works and should be available in most book stores.

[oberliner]

11. Probably not a good idea to recommend a book by Dennis Prager

He's a very conservative Republican.

[bemildred]

32. LOL.

Like Rush but more pompous. I think conservatism is a sound intellectual/political position, but it's not a sound ideology.
:thumbsup:

[aranthus]

59. Not at all.

Prager is definintely a conservative, but he's an honest and thoughtful one (they do exist).

[bemildred]

63. He is a simple-minded poltroon.

All of his arguments are circular. He assumes what he attempts to prove. He is Rush Limbaugh without the charm or wit.

[aranthus]

58. I know who Prager is.

However:
First, the two Prager/Telushkin books aren't about politics. Second, I usually don't recommend a book unless I have read it. For people who want to learn about Jews and antisemitism, those two are about the best popular level books I've read on the subject (Along with Clues About Jews). Third, people can't stand to read books by conservative authors, that's their problem. Other than extremists, if I rejected every book or idea without reading or thinking about it just because it came from the Right, then I wouldn't be intellectually honest. That's a far worse sin than being conservative.

[bemildred]

72. One is not required to read every nitwit that comes along with a book

in order to remain intellectually honest. I am quite sure you pick and choose too. There are far more books than anyone has time to read, and one is not only allowed but required to select among them. Therefore it is you that are being intellectually dishonest by claiming to have read them all, or even to have considered them all.

[LeftishBrit]

80. I have read some Prager; and I do consider him to be extremist.

Admittedly I have not read the Prager/Telushkin books on antisemitism, and I take your point that they're not about politics. However I would find it difficult to fully take Prager's views on antisemitism on board, when he is himself such a xenophobe and so culturally intolerant.

The word 'conservative' has many meanings. Often it is used to mean simply 'traditionalist', 'opponent of radical change of any sort', or 'economic conservative'. However, there is a certain strand of right-wing so-called 'conservative' opinion which places great emphasis on xenophobia and intolerance of diversity, whether regarding background, religion, or political viewpoint. To me, xenophobia - especially the sort that consists not just of a dislike of foreigners but of an intolerance toward suspected 'enemies within'; an insistence on a narrow system of values as defining one's culture or nation; and an equating of cultural or religious diversity with treachery or not being a 'true Briton' or 'true American' - is my 'bridge too far'; one of my strongest litmus tests for extremism. Someone who holds such values *is* an extremist, whether an Islamist 'Westernophobe'; a Europaean anti-immigrant bigot; or an American 'culture warrior'. The slurs that I ardently oppose against 'Zionists' being more loyal to Israel than to their own country are just different horses from the same stable as Prager's.

Prager's xenophobia is perhaps most clearly shown in his comments about Keith Ellison's taking his oath of office on the Koran, and its ramifications:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53122

'He should not be allowed to do so – not because of any American hostility to the Quran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism – my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book....
I'm afraid we are becoming a diverse, secular society without any roots, and this is symbolically an example of that. The Bible is the repository of our values, not the Constitution...'


In part, I have to admit, I hate and distrust Prager for the rather simple reason that, by implication, he hates and distrusts me. I am a secular Europaean left-winger. He considers people like me as a danger to civilization:

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31210 - 29k

'The second ideology seeking to dominate the world is secularism and socialism as practiced in Western Europe and supported by educated elites around the world.

...Western European socialists and their American (and Canadian, and Latin American) supporters are as passionate about secularism and socialism as believing Muslims are about Islam. And they want to dominate the world as much as militant Muslims want Islam to. Their vehicles are the United Nations, the European Union, international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocols, and international institutions such as the International
There is no other country that claims to be Judeo-Christian and no other that has such strong support for capitalism and small government (the opposite of socialism). Therefore, while both the militant Muslims and the socialists/secularists have supporters around the world, American values have few. That is why America goes it alone -- with the partial exceptions of Israel and Britain, no other society has the same values as we do.
Second, neither Judeo-Christian nor capitalist values are secure in America. Many Americans, including almost its entire intellectual class, are as hostile to Judeo-Christian and non-socialist values as the militant Muslims and European socialists are.
Third, almost no one is teaching the next generation of Americans (as almost no one taught the present adult generation) what is unique, let alone superior, about American values. Our children are overwhelmingly educated by people who believe in Europe's values, not in ours.
As neither China nor the rest of Asia, nor Africa, nor Latin America are offering an ideology that can dominate the world, either Europe's, or the militant Muslims', or America's way of life will prevail.
But the American way can only prevail if Americans believe in it. That is why, as important as the military and ideological battles against militant Islam are, the most important battle is the ideological one within America. But with America's universities, unions, professional associations, mainstream news media, and one of its two major parties ideologically aligned with Europe, and with big businesses constantly undermining Judeo-Christian values, the battle within America itself for America's unique values is far from won. And given that only America offers a viable alternative to both militant Islam and secularism/socialism, if we lose the battle here, humanity has a very dark future'


Another article:


o www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/prager030204.asp

begins:

'America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war – a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.
One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.
One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.
The first war is against the Islamic attempt to crush whoever stands in the way of the spread of violent Islamic theocracies, such as al-Qaida, the Taliban, the Iranian mullahs and Hamas. The other war is against the secular nihilism that manifests itself in much of Western Europe, in parts of America such as San Francisco and in many of our universities.
America leads the battle against both religious and secular nihilism and is hated by both because it rejects both equally. American values preclude embracing either religious extremism or radical secularism. ...All this explains why the passions are so intense regarding same-sex marriage. Most of the activists in the movement to redefine marriage wish to overthrow the predominance of Judeo-Christian values in American life. '

Here we see not only an extreme hostility to secularists, but an accusation against significant numbers of people *within* America of being 'against American values' and indeed a threat to 'the survival of civilization'; an 'enemy' rightly subject to a 'war'.

Do I think Prager should be banned or suppressed? No; that would in itself be extremely RW, intolerant, and bordering on totalitarianism. However, I do consider that his value system is so fundamentally different from mine and opposed to everything I value - in ways that go well beyond what's commonly meant by 'conservative' (e.g.: I dislike our Tory leader Cameron and would never vote for him, but I think that fundamentally Cameron and I have far more in common with one another than either of us does with Prager) that I would have a very hard time taking *any* of his ideas seriously, and would need a lot of convincing that they don't form a part of his very dangerous RW agenda.

[aranthus]

112. I think we must agree to disagree.

First of all, when I say extremists, I mean Fascists and further out on the Right and Marxists and further out on the Left. Prager is not a fascist. Nor do I think that he's a xenophobe.

The Ellison episode is problematic, and Prager rightly caught flak for that from all sides. A number of his associates and friends on the Right criticized his position. It was wrong. I also don't think that he's changed it. So I understand your position and feelings on the issue. However, I don't think it was born of xenophobia. First, you'll note that he says explicitly that his position is not about hostility to the Quran.

Second, he's really concerned with maintaining American values and symbols. The reason for that is that American is only a set of values and symbols. The American nation is what it believes, and how it acts and sees itself. There is no American race or bloodline to tie people together as there is in other nations. That's good because it means anyone can become fully American (imagine living in Japan and being fully accepted as Japanese). It is the most radical and finest idea that America has given to the world: that race and bloodline don't matter, and that you can be fully countrymen with anyone who shares the values of America. It's tricky, however, because it means that we have to work extra hard to maintain our values or America won't be America anymore.

I do think Prager was wrong about Ellison, but probably not for the reason that you do. Prager misunderstood the primary purpose of the oath of office; to evidence truth telling. For that reason, Ellison should have taken the oath on his holy book. Was Prager right that the oath on a Bible symbolizes commitment to American values? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not xenophobia, and it certainly isn't extremism.

Now about Prager's "war" against the secular Left. First, he has stated repeatedly that he doesn't mean a violent war. He means a war of ideas. Now, I understand that you're a secular Leftist, and a Brit, and that's fine. But America is not a secular Left nation. It's a religious Centrist nation, and always has been. I don't want that to change, because I think that set of ideas is the good that America brings to the world. But the secular Left in America does want that to change. It wants America to be like Western Europe. Now, I love Europe and Europeans, but I think that would be bad for America, and bad for the world. Does that mean I'm hostile to or hate Leftists. Of course not. Ditto Prager. Finally, I suspect that your finding him an extremist stems in part from where you sit ideologically more so than from Prager himself. From the position of this conservative Democrat, Prager may be wrong, but he's not extreme.

[cali]

12. Actually, there is no mention of God whatsoever in our most important founding

document. And there is no mention of a Christian God in the Declaration. If the founders had indeed meant for Judeo-Christian values to be instrumental, they would have enshrined that somewhere in our founding documents. It might be accurate to state that J-C values influenced the founders, but then that's a different statement.

[oberliner]

15. Who is the "Supreme judge of the world"?

What is meant by: "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"?

What about the reference to Divine Providence in this part of the declaration: "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence"?

Do those references not fit the bill?

[azurnoir]

20. The Declaration ewas written largely by Masons

and perhaps a look at that and Masonic belief needs to taken.

[Vegasaurus]

21. And what of all the Christian references, and mentions of G-d

in Obama's inaugural speech?

That part wasn't at all inclusive.

[azurnoir]

22. I thought the opening prayer was

IMO it would be best to leave all of that out however

[Madam Mossfern]

31. Oh give me a break!

Take off that tinfoil hat, will ya?

[aranthus]

60. God is mentioned in the Declaration.

It's not in the Constitution because the Founders were creating a secular government. You write, "If the founders had indeed meant for Judeo-Christian values to be instrumental, they would have enshrined that somewhere in our founding documents." That isn't necessarily true. First because they weren't creating a religious government. Second, and more important, they didn't have to because the Judeo-Christian value system was already part of the society for which they were creating the government. It was not a question of Founder's intent, it was a question of the society that already existed. Nation and Government are two halves of a whole. Nation tells Government what to do, and Government tells Nation if and how it can do it. The Founders also didn't declare in the founding documents that English was to be the language of the country, because it already was. You are correct that J-C values influenced the Founders, but that is because they influenced the nation from which the Founders came.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. This thinking reflects the height of self-absorption and "first worldism."

Does the psychological need for Jews around the world to have a "safe place" "just in case" obviate the right of Palestinians who actually DO live there to basic human and political rights?

Does this rabbi's desire for the idyllic dream she describes count more than the ACTUAL LIFE of Palestinians forced to live in conditions that are atrocious?

It's too damn bad the world wasn't actually forced to grapple with the hideous anti-semitism that came to the fore during WWII.

Let's eradicate the prejudice, not the people who live in the "just in case" place of refuge.

[Tripmann]

13. Good point.

Theres a lot of people in gitmo for years in the name of safety "just in case" they're terrorists.

[Shaktimaan]

27. This is a completelt false analogy.

Does the psychological need for Jews around the world to have a "safe place" "just in case" obviate the right of Palestinians who actually DO live there to basic human and political rights?

The OP was about why American Jews feel a strong connection to Israel. It wasn't arguing that Israel's existence is based entirely upon the emotional well-being of US Jews. Disregarding the role that Israel has played in securing the safety and lives of Jewish refugees from around the world during the past 60 years is not an effective way to make your point. "Just in case" and "safe place" are not abstract concepts for many of Israel's Jewish citizens.

I'll remind you that the Palestinians themselves reinforced the Jewish need for such a safe place by reacting so violently when they felt their own majority rule was in jeopardy. We could just as easily ask if Jewish refugees should have been denied a safe place to exist within their historic homeland just to guarantee that the Arabs would have an ethnic majority over the whole of Palestine?

Does this rabbi's desire for the idyllic dream she describes count more than the ACTUAL LIFE of Palestinians forced to live in conditions that are atrocious?

Well, one thing has nothing to do with the other, the question makes no sense. There are plenty of reasons that many Palestinians live in atrocious conditions, however this isn't one of them. To pose the situation as an "either/or" choice between having either a Jewish nation or Palestinian political rights is to plainly demonstrate the continuing need for Jewish self-determination.

Incidentally, I think that it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to even ask this question considering how Israel's relatively large Arab population stands in stark contrast to the almost total absence of Jews throughout the entire Arab Middle East.

Let's eradicate the prejudice, not the people who live in the "just in case" place of refuge.

Great idea! I support this fully. But I'm not sure that it's such a great contingency plan.
Let me know when it starts working out though... when all of the Arab states start to abandon their prejudices against the Palestinians. (What? All of a sudden, being told to work towards "eradicating prejudice" doesn't seem like it's enough for all those refugees?)

[scarletwoman]

33. Wow. Just. Wow. "the Palestinians themselves reinforced the Jewish need for such a safe place...

by reacting so violently when they felt their own majority rule was in jeopardy.

So, being violently driven out of your homeland by colonialists is simply a matter of losing "majority rule"?

Un-fucking-believable.

[oberliner]

35. Colonialists?

How can you be a colonialist if you don't have a home country?

Unless you are talking about the British?

[scarletwoman]

39. You're kidding me. But if you're honestly confused, I'll make it as simple as I can.

People "A" live in a geographical location for two thousand years, give or take a century.

People "B" show up from elsewhere and push People "A" off their land so that People "B" can live there instead.

That makes People "B" colonialists.

sw

(edited for missing word in subject line)

[oberliner]

43. Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders

The scenario you are describing would not be an example of colonialism.

[scarletwoman]

44. Okay, then what do YOU call it?

Do you prefer the word "invaders"?

[oberliner]

47. Well I don't view the events of that time period the same way you do

I am fairly certain that we will not be able to find agreement on most of the details surrounding the origins of the modern state of Israel.

I think we can agree, however, that the circumstances were pretty unique historically speaking - so I'm not sure what terminology would be most apt to describe what took place, though I would respectfully assert that "colonization" is not an accurate term for the reasons I've mentioned.

[scarletwoman]

65. Some reading...

http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm

<snip>

When Zionism had its first beginnings, in the early 19th century, there were about 200,000 Arabs living between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean in the approximate area that later became "Palestine," mostly concentrated in the countryside of the West Bank and Galilee, and mostly lacking in national sentiment. Palestine was, in Western eyes, a country without a nation, as Lord Shaftesbury wrote. Early proto-Zionists did not trouble themselves at all about the existing inhabitants. Many were heavy influenced by utopianism. In the best 19th century tradition, they were creating a Jewish utopia, where an ancient people would be revived. They envisioned a land without strife, where all national and economic problems would be solved by good will, enlightened and progressive policies and technological know-how. Herzl's Altneuland was in in fact just such a utopia. In the novel, Herzl envisioned a modern pluralistic society, in which Jews and Arabs had equal rights. A demagogic politician who wanted to form a narrow hyper-nationalist Jewish state, was defeated in elections.

In reality, Jewish population grew, but Arab population grew more rapidly. By 1914, there were over 500,000 Arabs in Palestine, but only about 80,000 to 100,000 Jews. Arab opposition to Jewish settlement grew as Arabs perceived that the Zionist goal was more than just a myth, and as they increasingly identified Zionism with British interests in the Middle East.

At the same time, early Zionist pronouncements and outlook were often frankly colonialist, especially when addressing leaders of foreign powers. The plantations sponsored by Baron Rothschild were modeled on plantation settlement in Algeria and other colonies. Colonialism was fashionable and "progressive," and some early Zionist leaders saw nothing wrong in assimilating this idea to Zionism along with other modern ideas such as socialism, utopianism and nationalism.

Later Zionists were heavily influenced by socialism and embarrassed at the colonialist aspects of the Zionist project. They were also aware, of course, that Palestine was already occupied by Arabs. Many however, including the young David Ben-Gurion, who headed the Executive committee of the Zionist Yishuv (Jewish community) in Palestine and was later the first Prime Minister of Israel, initially thought that the Arabs could only benefit from Jewish immigration and would welcome it. Others, such as Eliezer ben Yehuda, frankly envisioned removal of the Arabs from Palestine.

I see so many echos of the European invasion of what is now the U.S.A. It's difficult for me to understand how anyone cannot see the same.

sw

[cali]

37. wow. just wow right back at you

the simplistic and profoundly stupid and dishonest narratives around here from partisans on both sides, never cease to amaze me. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

[scarletwoman]

38. Whatever, Cali. I take your disagreements with me as a badge of honor. (nt)

[cali]

41. brilliant retort.

not. seriously, this black/white/good/evil crap is so intellectually bereft. and it's so clearly born out of hate.

[scarletwoman]

42. I reserve my brilliant retorts for opponents I respect.

[cali]

49. no. you've never written anything here that even shows a glimmer

of thoughtful, let alone brilliant. And I certainly don't consider you an opponent. Why would I?

[Shaktimaan]

48. Um, noooo.

I'm talking about the beginning of the conflict which started when Arab Palestinians grew anxious over the amount of Jewish settlers who were emigrating and purchasing land there. The first instances of violence and ethnic cleansing were initiated by Arabs against the native Jewish population.

Jewish retribution against Arabs didn't really start until after the Great Arab Revolt had already begun.

Or do you have an alternative explanation for why the Arabs of Palestine began violently massacring and expelling their Jewish neighbors?

Can you answer a slightly off-topic question for me? Why is it that whenever Arabs moved to Palestine from some other nation they automatically became "Palestinian" but all the Jews who moved there from somewhere else (even Arab states) are referred to as "colonialists?"

[Douglas Carpenter]

96. that is simply not true

First of all the first fighting was with Zionist settlers - not local indigenous Jewish people. This is documented by a wide variety of sources including works by Benny Morris, Barack Kimmerling and Avi Shlaim as well as numerous others. Although, unfortunately violence against indiginous non-Zionist Jews did ideed happen too, at a later time as indigenous Jews did quite unjustly become unidentified with the Zionist project as the number of Zionist settlers began to dramatically exhilarate and fear of the usurpation of their homeland started to appear a very real possibility.

Secondly it is simply inaccurate to suggest that the Zionist did nothing provocative toward the indigenous Palestinian Arabs.

From Avi Shlaim:

"The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt toward the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of such attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behavior and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha'am, that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force." And they "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha'am penned these words a century ago.

That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs as possible inside their state is hardly open to question. "

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

(I might add that Avi Shlaim is definitely a Zionist. He was actually born in Baghdad, Iraq in 1945 with Arabic as his first language and immigrated to Israel with his family as a small child of five years in 1950. He makes it quite clear in his books that he strongly believes establishing the Jewish state was a historic necessity and a great accomplishment. However he also acknowledge the grave injustice this project brought upon the Palestinian people and the confusion created within the Arab world)

Avi Shlaim was born in Baghdad in 1945, grew up in Israel, and studied at Cambridge and the London School of Economics. He is a Fellow of St. Anthony’s College and a Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2006. His books include Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, and War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History. He lives in Berlin.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781400043057-1

.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

103. Hard to fathom if Shakti's use of ethnic cleansing

to fight newly-arrived settlers is simply ignorant or purposeful in intent to mislead.

[shaayecanaan]

40. Re:

The OP was about why American Jews feel a strong connection to Israel.

By and large, they don't. If anything the younger generation of Jews have less of an attachment to Israel. This mirrors the experience of Irish and Italian immigrants to America, most of whom no longer speak Gaelic or Italian or care overly about what happens in their places of origin.

By and large, most migrants migrate for economic opportunities. Migration to Israel was very high for Jews in Arab countries where economic prospects were poor. Migration of Indian Jews was high even though there was no persecution of Jews there. Migration from North America has been much less, due to a much better economic situation. There are less than a hundred Jews left in Armenia, not because of persecution, but because of widespread poverty.

Many Jewish organisations in Western Europe and North America like to exaggerate the danger they face from anti-Semitism because it affords them a sense of solidarity. This is why every incident, however trivial, gets obsessively recorded and why every year there are newspaper stories saying that anti-semitic incidents have increased by 57% or 300% (you never hear about them decreasing even though that would seem to be statistically inevitable at some stage).

This is because the biggest threat to Jewry in those places is not anti-Semitism but exogamy and assimilation, so they need all the solidarity they can get. Often, European and North American Jews point to the necessity of having Israel as a safe haven despite the fact that they have not the slightest intention of moving there, nor do they have a speedboat full of fuel ready to take them there "just in case" (which would seem to be a reasonable precaution if indeed Hitler's ghost were walking across the stage).

[oberliner]

46. Anti-Semitic Incidents Decline for Third Straight Year in U.S. According to Annual ADL Audit

NEW YORK, March 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The number of anti-Semitic
incidents in the United States declined for the third consecutive year,
according to newly issued statistics from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
The League's annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, issued today, counted a
total of 1,357 incidents of vandalism, harassment and other acts of hate
against Jewish individuals, property and community institutions in 2007,
representing a 13 percent decline from the 1,554 incidents reported in 2006.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS129053+05-Mar-2008+PRN20080305

I urge you to reconsider some of the inaccurate claims you are making.

[Shaktimaan]

50. Well...

By and large, they don't. If anything the younger generation of Jews have less of an attachment to Israel.

Some do, some don't. I haven't particularly noticed anything that could be considered a trend. From what I've seen, it depends on everyone's individual views and experiences. A large percentage of American Jews visit Israel at least once in their lives, and it remains popular among teens and young adults. But in (very) general American Jews have a tendency to liberalism when they're younger and then trend more conservatively as they age.

Many Jewish organisations in Western Europe and North America like to exaggerate the danger they face from anti-Semitism because it affords them a sense of solidarity.

I really don't think that's the idea there. Nor do I think that the threat from anti-semitism in North America gets particularly exaggerated. I have no idea what newspapers you're reading but I seldom see stories like that.

This is because the biggest threat to Jewry in those places is not anti-Semitism but exogamy and assimilation, so they need all the solidarity they can get.

Well, you're half right here. The biggest threat is assimilation. But I've never seen anything to suggest that there's any attempt to wield anti-semitism as a bulwark against it. I think you're just making assumptions to back up your own negative opinion of pro-Israel diaspora Jews.

Often, European and North American Jews point to the necessity of having Israel as a safe haven despite the fact that they have not the slightest intention of moving there

What European Jews? Half of the world's Jews live in America, the other half live in Israel. Around 3% live in France, and they are all relatively recent Sephardic immigrants from Algeria. France's original Ashkenazi population is pretty much gone. I don't know that there are enough Jews left in Europe to really generalize about them.

Considering that, you do realize the irony of your statement, don't you?

[oberliner]

52. Jewish Identity - 2007 Annual Survey of Jewish Opinion

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

“Caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew.”

Agree 69
Disagree 28
Not sure 3

How close do you feel to Israel?

Very close 30
Fairly close 40
Fairly distant 21
Very distant 8
Not sure 1

http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.3643395/

For what that is worth.

[shaayecanaan]

53. Spelling mistake in my last post...

"exaggerate" - Jesus, I feel all dirty inside...

Some do, some don't. I haven't particularly noticed anything that could be considered a trend.

I posted this about a week ago:-

The answer may be that there is a continuing, and fundamental, misunderstanding of the political issues that motivate American Jews. According to the American Jewish Committee’s 2008 edition of its annual survey of Jewish opinion, conducted in September, a majority of Jews, 54 percent, wanted the presidential candidates to “talk more” about the economy. By contrast, only a tiny fraction, three percent, wanted to hear more about Israel. Similar evidence of the relative electoral unimportance of Israel comes from a survey taken by J Street, which asked likely Jewish voters to check off the two issues, from a list of thirteen, “most important for you in deciding your vote for President and Congress this November.” Fifty-five percent chose the economy, 33 percent the war in Iraq, 15 percent energy, and 12 percent the environment. Just 8 percent chose Israel.

I really don't think that's the idea there. Nor do I think that the threat from anti-semitism in North America gets particularly exaggerated.

A couple of posters on this board (whom I assume to be Jewish) have made the remark that "it could happen here" (ie something like the holocaust could happen in America). I suppose it "could happen here" in the sense that we could experience a recurrence of the virulent anti-Freemasonry sentiment of 1830s America - its just not that likely. I remember responding to one such poster by saying that, if they considered a second holocaust to be a reasonable prospect, had they commenced the construction of a secret annexe in their attic, or fitted out an ocean-going yacht in readiness for their departure? I can only assume that they had not.

Identity politics is very strong in America, where else can you walk past someone with a stupid sweatshirt saying "Don't hate me because I'm Latvian Orthodox"?

BTW, did you know that the first political party to hold conventions in America was the Anti-Freemason party? There's your interesting fact for today.

[oberliner]

55. Important factual mistake in your last post

Your claim:

"every year there are newspaper stories saying that anti-semitic incidents have increased by 57% or 300% (you never hear about them decreasing even though that would seem to be statistically inevitable at some stage)"

The reality:

The ADL has reported declines in anti-semitic incidents in the US for three consecutive years leading up to 2007 (including a 13 percent decline from 2006 to 2007).

If you want to get a better sense of the statistics, the ADL recorded about 1,000 incidents in 1983, rising to a high of about 2,000 incidents in 1994, dropping down to about 1,400 in 2001, rising up to 1,800 in 2004, and then dropping back down to under 1,400 in 2007.

Some examples of incidents that were recorded: Arsonists damaged the entrance to a local Jewish cemetery, Windows of a Jewish day school in North Miami were coated with feces, Swastikas, "Death to Jews" and other graffiti written on Houston synagogue, etc.

[LeftishBrit]

64. Though there are far fewer Jews in Europe than America, we do still exist

It's difficult to get precise figures, but there are approximately one and a half million Jews in Europe. About a million of these live in EU countries, and most of the rest in the former Soviet Union.

There are about 350,000 Jews in the UK.

[DogPoundPup]

78. "safe place" "just in case" is pretty short sighted when a person stops to think about it

If anything were to trigger an exodus from New York and Encino, how exactly would Israel provide refuge? Gathering all the Jews into one easily-nuked strip of land is their idea of a 'safe place'?

[Larkspur]

57. You can't serve 2 masters

Israel is a foreign power with interests that are not in-lined with U.S. interests and Israel has murdered U.S. citizens with impunity. If Israel is your homeland, then live there.

I find it interesting that more Jews live outside Israel than in it. If Israel is the "promise land" for Jews, why aren't more Jews living there than outside of it?

[cali]

61. oh, goody. the dual loyalties slur again.

it's always fun to see the protocols of zion piously invoked by DUers

:rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

62. Sorry but that's a prime example of the sort of anti-Israel sentiment which is NOT pro-Palestinian

but xenophobic.

Your post reminds me of the right-wing British politician Norman Tebbit, who accused British Asians, and other descendants of immigrants, of dual loyalties and demanded that they prove their loyalty to Britain by the 'cricket test' of cheering for England in cricket matches against their ancestral countries.

'I find it interesting that more Jews live outside Israel than in it. If Israel is the "promise land" for Jews, why aren't more Jews living there than outside of it?'

Dunno. Why do most 'Wasps' live outside England? Why don't all Irish-, Italian-, or Chinese-Americans choose to return to Ireland, Italy or China?

[Larkspur]

66. I agree with Mahatma Gandhi -- Israel did not need to exist.

Gandhi foresaw the violence that the state of Israel would cause in the region. He also saw Zionism as a mutation of Western European colonialism. Zionists asked Gandhi 4 times for his blessing for the state of Israel and he refused each time.

I'm anti-apartheid and Israel is an apartheid nation. Americans don't see the day-to-day brutal treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis. If we did, then Americans would have a viewpoint closer to Europe's about Israel and Palestine.

I've recently already had a debate with an American Jew who runs the stable where my horse use to live. He spouted the AIPAC garbage about how Palestinians were inferior because it was the Jews who turned a desert into a lush productive land. I told him that he was using racist language that was nearly verbatim used by the British who persecuted my Irish ancestors and was also used by my Irish American uncles to justify not hiring African Americans in their businesses. Just because he was a Jew, did not mean that he could not be a racist. He was also an anti-Semite because the Arab Palestinians are of Semitic origin and are closer to their Semitic roots than the Western and Eastern European Jews who colonized Palestine.

American Jews who support groups that choose to blind themselves to the evil that Israel has done are no friend to America. I especially despise American Jews who thought it was OK for Israel to kill with impunity American citizens like Rachel Corrie and our service men on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967.

Apartheid regimes are doomed to fail and will not be tolerated by most of the world. Just ask South Africa. Unfortunately, those regimes cause a lot of damage and loss of life before they go extinct. You know what's interesting, Israel was the lone developed nation to support the Apartheid regime in South Africa after the United States was pressured to withdraw support from it. Looks like Israel imported apartheid practices from South Africa to use against the Palestinians.

Unlike the European Jews who stole lands from the Palestinians and continue to this day to steal land from the Palestinians, my Irish and Lithuanian ancestors did not steal land from their new country. They bought the land they lived on. If America was not open to my ancestors, then they most likey would have stayed in their home origins, but famine and British oppression drove my Irish ancestors to America and Russian oppression and lack of economic opportunities drove my Lithuanian ancestors to America. The big difference between America and Israel -- America was not established as a Christian nation and Israel was established as a Jewish state. Prejudice was built-into the Israeli nation once it became a Jewish state and that is another reason why Mahatma Gandhi opposed the creation of the state of Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

67. Israel was established as a REFUGE for Jews - not as a religious theocracy

Many Israeli citizens are not Jewish. Many Jewish citizens are not religious. The criterion for automatic emigration under the 'Law of Return' is that you should have sufficient Jewish ancestry to have risked being persecuted as a Jew under the Nazis or similar groups. You don't have to be religiously Jewish, or ethnically Jewish according to most criteria. A Christian or atheist with one Jewish grandparent would be eligible.

'If America was not open to my ancestors, then they most likey would have stayed in their home origins, but famine and British oppression drove my Irish ancestors to America and Russian oppression and lack of economic opportunities drove my Lithuanian ancestors to America'

And what do you think makes Israel any different there?! Many at the time when 'Israel was not open' perished.

'my Irish and Lithuanian ancestors did not steal land from their new country.'

No, they didn't do so personally, but they arrived in a country that already owed much of its existence to a MASSIVE land theft from, and true genocide of, the indigenous people.

The point is that Israel - and America - DO exist. And whatever arguments there may be against their initial existence, they cannot cease to exist *now* without massive bloodshed.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

69. "A Christian or atheist with one Jewish grandparent would be eligible."

But people who were born there are banned. Wrong color. Wrong religion.

[LeftishBrit]

70. Wrong colour? Can you distinguish Mizrahi Jews from Arabs by colour?

And what about the Falashas?

BTW, I do support right of return for people who were born there, though I do not think it possible to establish it for all their descendants (just as I would not expect to have right of return to Poland or Lithuania).

[Vegasaurus]

74. And many of the original inhabitants are old or dead

The descendants are off the table.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

76. But your great-great-great grandchildren will have the right to go to Israel.

What bullshit.

[oberliner]

77. Why is that bullshit?

Jewish people were forced out of their homes in (for example) Poland - villages where Jewish families had lived for many generations were completely wiped out. The descendants of those who were murdered do not have the right to return to those villages. However, they do have the right to go to Israel.

Similarly, with the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, Palestinians who were forced out of their homes where their families had lived for generations will have the right to live in this Palestinian state.

I do not understand why this concept is so repulsive to you.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

82. They're not forced out of their homes in Brooklyn, aren't they?

I don't mind allowing Jewish people to make aliyah.

Allow the original inhabitants of the land to do the same.

[cali]

84. how about the hundreds of thousands of Jews that got kicked out of

and persecuted in Arab countries? Hardly just comfortable people from the U.S. Big of you to give them your blessing to go to Israel.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

85. I have no problem with Israel absorbing Jews, unless it requires the exclusion of people

who were actually born there.

Again, Cali, no one appointed you the chief judge of this forum.

Oberliner asked why that concept was repulsive to me. I'm explaining why it's not.

[LeftishBrit]

83. Perhaps, long before that time...

a true peaceful democratic secular one-state solution with Jews, Arabs and other groups living peacefully together without boundaries will have long been established. It's not possible now. That doesn't mean it never will be.

Perhaps by that time the whole concept of national and religious boundaries will have disappeared. Perhaps now-unimagined social systems, good or bad, will have taken its place.

On the other hand, perhaps by then we will have all blown each other up, or made the world uninhabitable by global warming. I hope not.

[cali]

71. oh please. cut with the wrong color bullshit.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with color no matter how many times that silly and fallacious claim is made. For that matter, I believe there are more citizens of African ancestry in Israel than in the WB or Gaza. And the religion thing is also demonstrably false as 20% of Israel's citizens are Muslims.

The Israelis do not accept the Palestinian right of return. That much is true.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

75. I consider Arabs to be brown. Do Israelis consider themselves brown?

It's not about religion. It's about national/ethnic group.

My husband is banned from entering Gaza because he is a Palestinian Muslim, in spite of teh fact that he was born there.

So some dude in North America whose great grandmom Bertha was Jewish can go any time he pleases? And take up permanent residence?

That's fucked up no matter how you slice it.

[cali]

79. what you consider is wholly irrelevant. It's facts that matter

and Israel's laws about citizenship aren't even that unusual. Furthermore, if Palestine ever becomes an independent nation and they have similar laws, I doubt very much that you'd object. You'd rationalize it. I know you'll you wouldn't, but you rationalize so much shit and bend and twist facts so frequently that I don't buy it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

81. I think it's pretty unusual for someone who is born in a place to be banned from it.

And as for the rest of what you wrote, I'm not sure when you became the self-appointed arbiter of right and wrong in this conflict, but it's pretty nauseating.

[cali]

86. it's not at all unusual.

you simply are ignorant of history. And believe me, I find your hate very disturbing. And you spew it day after day.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

88. Utter nonsense.

I don't know what your agenda is here. I am saying that for someone to be barred from their place of birth by an occupying authority is wrong. Period.

If you want to defend that, feel free. Don't project your own snide anger and bitterness onto me.

Was I angry during the massacre of Gaza? Damn straight and rightly so. I hate no one, although self-absorbed liberals who think they have all the answers are very annoying. I spew no hate here, but you should definitely take a good long look in the mirror....

[Vegasaurus]

87. What's unusual?

I have Jewish friends whose families originated in Iraq and Egypt.

They were kicked out of their homes (where they were born) and forced to leave their home and land.

And they weren't compensated for it, and they are banned from returning.

That happened to about 850,000 Jews throughout the middle east.

So, in case you are thinking this is unusual, it isn't.

None of those people can go back and claim their former homes.

That happened to lots of other groups throughout history too.

The Palestinians don't hold the card on being banned from their former homes.

[oberliner]

99. Yes, many Israelis consider themselves brown

No Jew can go to Gaza, let alone take up residence.

[LeftishBrit]

73. But anyway...

let's even suppose for a second that Israel should never have existed, etc. etc. It STILL doesn't give anyone the right to accuse those of a different viewpoint of disloyalty to their country.

As far as I'm concerned, people are disloyal to their country if they commit, foment or support acts of terrorism within their borders or toward their fellow-citizens, or if they betray or sell state secrets. They are NOT disloyal for disagreeing politically, or for having sympathies with another country, so long as they do not directly harm their own country. And to accuse them of such is undemocratic at best, racist at worst -and all too common and dangerous in the world.

Avigdor Lieberman has the same views as you seem to about minority citizens who disagree with him - in his case, Israeli Arabs. It's an undemocratic and potentially racist view, whoever is holding it, and whoever are the specific targets.

[Larkspur]

90. By stifling an even handed debate on Israel, AIPAC and right wing Jews in America

are betraying America because they refuse to let American media tell the whole story to Americans of what is going on in Israel and Palestine. Without a complete picture that includes the Palestinian viewpoint, Americans will make bad decisions about what to do in the Middle East for America. Those decisions will help the right wing in Israel, but will damage America's moral authority in the Middle East and with other Muslim nations.

I have no problem supporting Jews in America who support an even handed approach towards the Israeil-Palestinian conflict. I don't support right wing Jews, like Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is racist towards Palestinians.

[LeftishBrit]

93. You think Jews have the power to 'refuse to let' the media do anything?

Just wow.

For the rest - Dennis Prager also thinks those who disagree with him are betraying America.

I don't support the likes of Lieberman either - we had ten years of the very similar Blair (who is not Jewish!!!) But do you also think that all 42 Republican senators and however many 'DINOs' are traitors to America? If you are singling out Lieberman and other RW Jews, then that's xenophobic. If you do think all Republicans and DINOs are traitors - rather than just very wrong - then that seems undemocratic.

[Larkspur]

100. What AIPAC and RW Jews do is call those who publicly question

Israel's brutal policies against the Palestinians anti-Semitic and they make it loud and clear. That's the common tactic used on this board too. Their purpose is to punish dissent against Israel as much as they can. The media gets money from advertisers and these groups work to bully advertisers to not fund the media for giving us a broader perspective of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So far those tactics have worked but the Internet is not as susceptible to those attacks but it will take time for the Internet to overcome these RW Jewish groups tactics.

[LeftishBrit]

111. But what you're doing on this thread...

is pretty much the equivalent. Some may call all criticism of Israel anti-semitic; but you similarly call all pro-Israel people 'racist against Palestinians'. Of course, antisemitism and racism against Palestinians both exist; but that doesn't justify sweeping accusations on *either* side. You just equated Cali's views (which are actually pretty equally critical of both sides in the conflict) with those of David Horowitz. If rushing to equate all disagreement with racism is wrong on one side, then it's wrong on the other.

[Larkspur]

89. Israel as a Jewish state is doomed

because the birth rates of Arabs and Palestinians is greater than Jewish birth and immigration rates.

Within 1 to 2 generations, Jews in Israel will be a minority in the Jewish state and that will lead to further injustice for non-Jews in Israel.

[Larkspur]

91. but Israel is a Jewish state and that is the problem

Israeli Arabs complain about being treated as 2nd class citizens inside Israel and it has to do with Israel being a Jewish state. Within 1 to 2 generations, the birth rate of Arabs and Palestinians will make Jews a minority inside the Jewish state and that will lead to more violence as Jews continue to use the power of the state and their military to counter the Arab and Palestinian birth rates. A 2 state solution is not viable for Palestinians because of their high birth rate and the fact that their lands are divided and infested with illegal Jewish settlers.

If Israel was to be a refuge for Jews, then Israel really should have been carved out of Germany after World War II because it was the Germans, not the Palestinians who committed the Holocaust. If that had been done, then we wouldn't be having the violence in the Middle East that we have now. To their credit, the Germans have done much to remember the Holocaust so that atrocities like that will not happen again. Unfortunately, it is Israel who is committing atrocities against the Palestinians, just like the ones that used to be done against their ancestors. It is Israel, the 4th or 5th most powerful military in the world, who wants to drive the Palestinians into the sea, not the other way around. Unfortunately for Israel's right wingers, the rest of the world remembers the Holocaust too and sees parallels to what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

[cali]

68. Gandhi also urged the Brits to surrender to the Nazis and said this about the Jews

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

Now to your post: You offer no citation for the claim that Zionists asked Gandhi for his blessing 4 times.

And your story, if true, about that Jew who used to stable your horse, is simply anecdotal, proving nothing and simply reinforcing your prejudices. Ironic that YOU accuse someone else of using racist language. Amd sorry, no matter how many times you repeat it, antisemitism does not, etymologically speaking, refer back to the word semite.

Yes, it's clear you despise any Jew who doesn't completely agree with your position that Israel is evil.

This paragraph of yours is particularly telling and particularly untrue.

"Unlike the European Jews who stole lands from the Palestinians and continue to this day to steal land from the Palestinians, my Irish and Lithuanian ancestors did not steal land from their new country. They bought the land they lived on. If America was not open to my ancestors, then they most likey would have stayed in their home origins, but famine and British oppression drove my Irish ancestors to America and Russian oppression and lack of economic opportunities drove my Lithuanian ancestors to America. The big difference between America and Israel -- America was not established as a Christian nation and Israel was established as a Jewish state. Prejudice was built-into the Israeli nation once it became a Jewish state and that is another reason why Mahatma Gandhi opposed the creation of the state of Israel."

First of all the European Jews who went to Palestine bought their land- largely from absentee landlords. That's a simple fact. Secondly, if anything, your sainted ancestors, (and mine) had less of a right to this country than European Jews did to Israel. They had no prior connection to the land. Zip. None.

Lastly, your ancestors were Lituanian? The Lithuanian holocaust of the Jews is hardly a bright spot.

I find your posts really disturbing- and more often than not they stray from any semblance of honesty.

One can oppose the Israeli occupation. One can oppose the attacks on Palestinians and the particularly ugly siege and massacre of Gaza without straying into the territory you do. Thank dog.

[Larkspur]

92. My Lithuanian grandparents left Lithuanian after World War I

They had nothing to do with the Nazi holocaust against the Jews inside Lithuanian and anyway they were peasant Lithuanians, not upper or middle class ones who would have been the officers in the military.

And my Irish ancestors left Ireland in the early 20th century. One of my Irish cousins, who stayed behind, was persecuted by the infamous British Black and Tans. They burned his tavern to the ground even though he was not part of the I.R.A.. What the Black and Tans did to my Irish cousin is the same thing that the current Israeli government is doing to the Palestinians. It's called oppression and injustice. Israel has forgotten the lessons of the Holocaust and they, like the Christians of the Roman Empire after 313 A.D., are the new generation of vicious persecutors and oppressors.

You are wrong about anit-semitism. Just because you use it exclusively about Jews does not mean that it can't be used to include all members of the Semitic people, which would include the Arabs. Only racist Jews use anti-semitism to mean exclusively Jews.

The Palestinians were the tenant farmers on those lands owned by the absentee landlords, which most likely were Ottoman Turks. My Irish ancestors were tenant farmers to British absentee landlords. Just because both were tenant farmers to absentee landlords did not mean that they did not live on and off that land. I recall Ben Gurion bragging about how he and his fellow Zionists slaughtered Palestinians during battles prior to 1948. Israel was founded by terrorists, so Israel should not have problems talking with terrorists today.

I find your David Horowitz/Lanny Davis philosophy about Israel disturbing about your posts. Horowitz/Davis are racists and I have yet to find a pro-Israel poster who is not a racist against the Palestinians.

Anyway I don't think Israel as a Jewish state can survive without being a violent or an apartheid state. The birth rates of Arabs and Palestinians outnumber Jewish birth and immigration rates so within 1 or 2 generations, Jews will be a minority within the Jewish state. That just spells more violence and injustice by Jews against non-Jews. The only solution is a one-state solution that ensures freedom for all members and this one-state solution should adopt the American principal of separation of church and state. That poses a problem to both Muslim and Jewish religious extremists, but they can both be treated as criminals by the new state if they use violence to advocate their religious viewpoints. My solution is that Israel as a Jewish state be replaced by a new one-state solution and the U.S. and U.N. will possibly have to maintain order in the short term.

[Behind the Aegis]

94. Gross ignorance.

"You are wrong about anit-semitism. Just because you use it exclusively about Jews does not mean that it can't be used to include all members of the Semitic people, which would include the Arabs. Only racist Jews use anti-semitism to mean exclusively Jews."

"Horowitz/Davis are racists and I have yet to find a pro-Israel poster who is not a racist against the Palestinians."

Your ignorance and untrue remarks are finally explained:
" The only solution is a one-state solution that ensures freedom for all members and this one-state solution should adopt the American principal of separation of church and state."

[Shaktimaan]

97. Riiiight.

Only racist Jews use anti-semitism to mean exclusively Jews.
Do you also believe that American Arabs of Egyptian descent qualify as "African-Americans?" Or that "inflammable" is the opposite of "flammable?"
Please don't call me racist just because you don't know how to use a dictionary.

I recall Ben Gurion bragging about how he and his fellow Zionists slaughtered Palestinians during battles prior to 1948.
Really, you do? Maybe you can point me to an example of this, in that case. I won't hold my breath.

I have yet to find a pro-Israel poster who is not a racist against the Palestinians.
You think that Palestinians are a race? That's interesting.

A 2 state solution is not viable for Palestinians because of their high birth rate and the fact that their lands are divided and infested with illegal Jewish settlers.
"Infested" huh? Even more interesting.

If Israel was to be a refuge for Jews, then Israel really should have been carved out of Germany after World War II because it was the Germans, not the Palestinians who committed the Holocaust. If that had been done, then we wouldn't be having the violence in the Middle East that we have now.
That's true enough... had Jews not emigrated to Palestine then there would not have been anyone for the Palestinian Arabs to attack. This obviously makes it the fault of the Jewish refugees, who should have had sense enough to go someplace where no one would try and kill them, instead of their historic homeland. :sarcasm:

[Larkspur]

101. "We must expel Arabs and take their places."

said David Ben Gurion in 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

That is the language of racist colonizers and on.

And some more interesting quotes from the Zionist movement that prove that colonization and racism were the real motivations of the European Zionists:
“Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom ; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.” Zionist writer Ahad Ha’am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’ He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

“Even if nobody lost their land, the program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights... Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise.” Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, “Original Sins.”

“For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion...The attackers ‘lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,’...The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country.” Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth of Israel.”

“By 1948, the Jew was not only able to ‘defend himself’ but to commit massive atrocities as well. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’...Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.’” Norman Finkelstein, “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.”

No wonder Mahatma Gandhi refused to recognize the state of Israel.

[cali]

104. link.

just curious what charming site you pulled those off of. Do share.

[Larkspur]

107. There's quite a few sites that have this quote

This is the one I pulled it from http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm
Here's another http://www.1lit.com/islam/israel-zionist-quotations.html

I'm a supporter of If Americans Knew and that is where I get most of my information about the origins of I/P conflict.

[Vegasaurus]

110. If Americans Knew is a hate site

full of wacko conspiracy theory nuts who think crazy things like Jews were responsible for 9/11 and planned it with Bush.

(You probably believe this too).

There isn't much in that crazy site that is remotely true about the I/P conflict.

[cali]

113. If Americans knew is banned here at DU because it's a hate site

It figures that YOU would depend on it for information. I'm sure you lap all that hate right up.

[cali]

102. you're so full of.....

unbelieveable. And yeah, you are what you are, and that's a hater. Disgusting. The body of your posts bolsters that sad conclusion.

And I'm neither Jewish or pro-Israel. So your lying ass accusation that my philosophy toward I/P aligns with Horowitz is simply another larkspur lie. Add it to the many you perpetrate here. Disgusting lies from someone who makes a habit of doing so. You really need a pizza. All bigots here do.

Let me make it perfectly clear to you: I condemn the occupation. I condemn the siege of Gaza. I condemn the recent massacre of Gazan civilians. And that aligns with Horowitz? Only in some sick little fevered imaginations. I also have ZERO tolerance for Muslim Hate or Jew Hate. Period. I also support both a Palestinian State and the Israli state. The one state solution is even more impossible than the two state solution. I know what you want. You've made your frothing at the mouth hate crystal clear.

Oh, and sorry, dear, antisemitism means bigotry toward Jews. Something YOU know a lot about. \

Your hate is truly repulsive.

[Larkspur]

106. Your hate and racism is atrocious

You and I will never agree and I have no intention of trying to make peace with the likes of you

[cali]

108. I've never uttered anything that could be construed by any sane person

as racist. Not here, and not in the real world. I'm not like you. Thank dog for that blessing.

You need a pizsa. Badly.

[Larkspur]

105. Gandhi hated Nazism and he hated war

from Holocaust An end to Innocence by Seymour Rossel

SNIP

Gandhi hated Nazism. At the same time, he also hated war. He therefore maintained that no war should be fought against Germany. He said that the world--including the Jews--should employ nonviolent resistance against Hitler.

Gandhi's approach relied on the power of moral example. In nonviolent resistance, the victim sets the example, and sooner or later the persecutor is forced by the weight of public opinion to back down. (This idea was later used by some leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States, particularly by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

Yet in the ghettos and camps of the Holocaust, millions had set an example of moral courage through nonviolent resistance--without any effect at all on Nazi policy or behavior. Moreover, Gandhi himself was killed by an assassin--as was Dr. King in the United States.

The difference may be one of moral education. People who are striving to do what is just are better prepared to see the point of nonviolent resistance. But those who have little education, or have been raised in systems based on racism, may have lost the ability to reason objectively. They often hear only what they wish to hear, and believe only what they wish to believe. And, educated or not, people do not always reason well when they are caught in desperate circumstances. As we have seen, the Germans after World War I were ready to accept any solution that promised to better their condition.

SNIP

Moral education is important, especially for the non-violent resisters. Also dominant groups who state they believe in a system that promotes freedom (like Judaic-Christian principles and democracy) but they themselves deny it to others makes the case that exposing the hypocrisy of the dominant group to that group can affect change without the resisters using violence. But the critical key to make non-violent resistance successful is public knowledge of the resistance and the reasons for the resistance. Public relations by the non-violent resisters is essential to bring pressure via boycotts and diplomatic negotiations upon oppressive governments to change. Even though government leaders of the Allies knew about the concentration camps, the Holocaust was not made public to the world until after the end of World War II. Even the German public during the war was kept in the dark about the extent of the Holocaust. Also, EVERYONE underestimated Hitler. He was intent upon launching war to build a German empire regardless of what his enemies thought or did to try to prevent war. Berserkers are hard to expose until they play their hand. However, the lessons of World War II and the Holocaust did show the need to oppose oppressive governments or at least nip their warmongering in the bud and made non-violent resisters recognize that public relations was a major factor in succeeding for their cause.

[cali]

109. You quoting Gandhi?

Ironic to say the least. And sickening.

[razors edge]

114. All well and good intentions.

Lets just get the US out of the business of financing foreign governments until all our own are fed and cared for.

That would solve more of all our problems than anything else at this point.