During his recent visit to the United States, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeated his demand that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state should be a precondition for talks aimed at achieving a peace settlement. While such a request might seem reasonable — after all, Israel is a Jewish state — it is actually a serious mistake.
First of all, what does the term “Jewish state” mean? Does it refer, for example, to a state governed completely or in part by Halacha, by traditional Jewish law? Does it refer to a particular set of linguistic, cultural and educational policies that the state will adopt? In my experience, if you put a half-dozen Jewish Israelis in a room and ask them what it means for Israel to be a Jewish state, you will receive four or five different answers, along with at least one indignant insistence that the phrase has no meaning whatsoever. Debates among American Jews on the topic are no less heated.
These ongoing debates about the meaning of a Jewish state are good for Israel, as are the serious and intense discussions taking place about the proper relationship of a Jewish state to its non-Jewish minority. These are highly charged issues that will not be resolved easily or soon. But making the debate a part of the diplomatic landscape is a decidedly bad idea.
Demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state could backfire from a public relations perspective. The United States is a multi-religious, multicultural democracy in which church-state separation is a sacred principle. The phrase “Jewish state,” absent more precise definition and context, is likely to grate on American ears.
What’s more, the term raises questions about the status of Muslim and Christian citizens in the State of Israel. Even though Israel’s Declaration of Independence guarantees all citizens full political and civil rights, Israel’s enemies might seize upon demands for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state to unfairly impugn its democratic bona fides.
Raising this matter now also has created suspicion in America that Israel is engaged in a rhetorical dodge meant to delay negotiations. (The same can be said of the current Israeli government’s refusal to recognize the long-established principle of a two-state solution.) Such tactics have allowed others to depict Israel as the holdout and to shift attention away from Palestinian intransigence, which remains the major obstacle to Palestinian independence.
But there is a more profound reason why this demand is ultimately bad for Israel: It flies in the face of the very principles that animated the movement to create and sustain a Jewish state.
Zionism is about the Jewish people taking control of its destiny and determining for itself what kind of nation Israel should be. As a matter of principle and national honor, Israel has never ceded this right to Palestinian or other Arab leaders. Indeed, no previous Israeli government has demanded that its Arab neighbors affirm the Jewish character of the state. Israel has made peace with two Arab countries — Egypt and Jordan — without including such a demand in the terms of the agreements.
The task of Israel’s government is not to gain “recognition” of its Jewish character from anyone, friend or foe. Its job is to guarantee a stable Jewish majority that will enable the Jewish state to continue to develop and evolve in a democratic fashion as well as to ensure Israel’s Jewish character for the future.
On this front, Israel has much more important diplomatic battles to fight. For instance, the demand that Arab refugees be settled in Israel under the “right of return” would undermine Israel’s Jewish majority. Israel should oppose such a right for even a single refugee as part of an agreement with the Palestinians.
Practical matters such as this should be the focus of Israel’s diplomatic efforts. That is the best way of protecting Israel’s future as a Jewish state.
Rabbi Eric Yoffie is president of the Union for Reform Judaism.
Chazak U'Barukh to Rabbi Yoffie. Sadly, the "verkramptes" will be posting here before you can say "Boo."
Rabbi Yoffie understands the word "Jewish" as a religious term. It is in his eyes parallel to "Muslim" and "Christian". He refers to "Jewish" also in context of the American principle of the separation of church and state. "Jewish" is for him a type of "church". Sadly, even a trained professional of American Jewry no longer understands the word "Jewish". A Jewish state is a nation-state, a state that expresses the right of self-determination of a particular peoplehood. There is a Polish nation-state, a Lithuanian nation-state, etc. The UN decision on partition of 1947 spoke of an "Arab state" and a "Jewish state" - not a "Moslem state" and a "Jewish state". "Jewish" is an ethnicity parallel to "Arab".
Let's first understand the intention of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Rabbi Yoffie - and then we can argue if the demand is wise or unwise. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state means that the Jews are a peoplehood, and are entitled to self-determination (statehood). It should be noted that the Palestinians do not recognize the Jews as a people, only as a religious community. Recognizing us as a people would mean the justification of the founding of the State of Israel. So far, the Palestinians only recognize that a state named Israel has been founded - not that such a state was founded by a legitimate universal right (self-determination of all peoples).
defining a process like "democracy" or "jewishness' never ends. Potentially, each person, if pressed enough, wld come up with own peculiar or particular definition. thus, i avoid defining any ism or term high up on a ladder going towards the moon. defining such terms lead to accrimony,anger,dissension. Pecisely why, deceivers [{un}knowingly]lead you on into a futile argument; evetually saying, Well we agree to disagree; ensuring that nothing is agreed on.
and all that while people are being killled. the fact is that about half of the world pop did not have a say in giving other people's land to europeans with judaic faith.
people of the book were urged and helped to wage wars against a shemo-cananitic people who may have continuously resided in excanaan or palestine for 7 to 10 K yrs.
so, the question arises, what can century-old occupation of excanaan by euros bring in the end? End, of course may not be nigh but it'll come. ooo1% of world pop cannot forever dictate to; let's say, 50% of the world pop. in view of this, all other converation, peace or war processes; other US/Israeli charades,including obama's,is a mere curioso.tnx
The reason that Israel was able to make peace with Jordan and Egypt (a cold peace) is that neither Jordan nor Egypt sees themselves as the new Israel. This is why Israel can make peace with Iceland or Ireland-there is no identity conflict. The reason that peace requires the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the state of the Jews is to end once and for all the identity conflict that is the root of this problem-who is the legitimate owner of G-ds gift to the Jewish people, the Jews or the Palestinians.
Which Jewish State is he talking about if he can't even define it himself? On the one hand he says "First of all, what does the term “Jewish state” mean? Does it refer, for example, to a state governed completely or in part by Halacha, by traditional Jewish law? Does it refer to a particular set of linguistic, cultural and educational policies that the state will adopt?
He then says that recognizing Israel as the Jewish State "flies in the face of the very principles that animated the movement to create and sustain a Jewish state."
Well, is there a Jewish State, Eric Yoffe? This is what happens when one gets lost in the theoretical and ambiguous world of leftist thought. It provides mental fun and exercise while dangerously ignoring reality!
In November 2007, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared that a “two states for two peoples” peace agreement with the Palestinians would require the explicit recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian response was immediate and unequivocal. Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian representative, summed it up: "Israel can define itself however it sees fit; and if it wishes to call itself a Jewish state, so be it. But the Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity."
More recently, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s newly elected Prime Minister, reportedly advised the newly appointed US Middle East envoy George Mitchell that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a fundamental element for any talks between the two parties. And again the Palestinian response was a vociferous rejection.
Why does recognition of Israel as a Jewish state create such a furor among Palestinians? The answer to this question tells you all you have to know about the prospects for any peace negotiations.
The term “Jewish state” appeared as far back as 1947 when the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 called for the creation of "Arab and Jewish states" in Mandatory Palestine. This was the resolution rejected by Arab states that instead attempted to militarily destroy the newborn Jewish state of Israel. The attacking nationalist Arab states characterized their unsuccessful efforts as a “jihad” against the Jews.
From the outset, the Muslim world has refused to formally recognize Israel, the ‘Zionist entity’, for the very reason that it was a Jewish state. It was one thing to tolerate a Lebanon where a carefully crafted balance of power between the Christian and Muslim communities was brokered after World War II based on a population census that has not been updated ever since. (A new census would, of course, reveal that the Muslims far outnumber the Marronite Christians. This is why it is now possible for Hezbollah to be on the way to forcibly creating the Islamic Republic of Lebanon.)
But to the Muslim Arabs It was another matter entirely to accept the establishment of a Jewish state (i.e., politically and culturally dominated by Jews). That is why despite having signed peace agreements with Israel, both Egypt and Jordan maintain a ‘cold’ peace. (Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president who signed the peace agreement with Israel, paid with his life when Islamists assassinated him.) To this day, the most vitriolic anti-Semitic propaganda drenches the media of both Egypt and Jordan where the populace continues to harbor hatred of Israel and Jews.
It is only the hard fact of Israel’s military superiority combined with continuous infusions of American cash that guarantee Egyptian and Jordanian honoring of these peace treaties with Israel. If either of these factors were to materially change, it would not be surprising if the condition of the ‘peace’ would change too.
Neither Egypt nor Jordan, however, had to contend with the knotty question of Palestinian refugees seeking their right to return to the homes in Israel vacated by their parents and grandparents during the tumultuous 1948 war against the fledgling Jewish state. This hot potato was given over to the Palestinian Liberation Organization, now operating under the banner of Palestinian Authority (PA). After all, the existence of a Jewish dominant state is something that the Palestinian would have to live with far more intimately than did the surrounding Arab states.
And this then is the heart of the matter. If there is one thing that Israeli Jews across the entire political spectrum agree on it is that for peace to be possible there can be no significant Palestinian ‘right of return’ to Israel proper. (Purportedly there are 4 to 5 million Palestinians today, counting those in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the descendants of Palestinians who fled to neighboring Arab states in 1948 - but not counting the more than 1.4 million Israeli Arabs!)
Israel cannot agree to such a ‘right of return’ for the simple reason that to do so would ineluctably lead to Palestinians swamping the Jews demographically and becoming the dominant culture (i.e., Islamic) much in the way that is now happening in Lebanon.
In short it would mean the death of the Jewish State of Israel.
This is precisely why the ‘right of return’ is so important to the Palestinians (and their supporters), as enunciated by the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
The difference between recognizing the State of Israel and recognizing the Jewish State of Israel is the difference between a false peace and a true one. By recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, the Palestinians would in effect renounce all claims to any part of Israel as defined within the borders that are ultimately agreed upon. This is the very essence of any peace agreement.
When the Palestinians reject out of hand the idea of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, it is a sure sign that they cynically view any peace agreement as the next step on the way to ultimately retaking ‘Palestine’ from the Jews through a demographic process that will end up making the Jews an ever shrinking (surviving?) minority.
And even if they can’t get Israel to sign an agreement that leaves open a possible right of return, the Palestinians calculate that they will be able to secure international pressure on Israel to succumb by committing demographic suicide in the name of peace. Why not, it’s a lot less messy than gas chambers.
The key question is whether the United States will take the position that any solution that risks Jewish demographic dominance in Israel is not a solution. Period. Interestingly, Mitchell’s response was that U.S. policy favors “a two-state solution which will have a Palestinian state living in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel.”
Hopefully, the statement by special envoy George Mitchell’s quoted above reflects a firm and absolute American policy that the explicit recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a non-negotiable sine qua non of any peace agreement.
It would be nice to hear it from the lips of President Obama.
The "moderate" Abbas reiterated, last month, his long standing refusal to accept a "Jewish State", any kind of Jewish state, Rabbi.
Just imagine if an Israeli PM said that, sure, she was willing for there to be a seperate state in the West Bank and Gaza, but "never" a "Palestinian" state. And what if that same PM said that all Palestinians must leave Israel.
Would anyone consider such an Israeli PM "moderate"? Rabbi Yoffe, would you think that was a good way to make peace? Would you criticize a Palestinian leader for then replying that Israel must recognize the right for a "Palestinian" state to exist? Do you find anything wrong with Abbas' or Obama's demanding today a "Palestinian" state?
Yeah, sure. Let's not talk about Israel as a "Jewish" state. Let's whisper and tiptoe and be ashamed of wanting a Jewish state. (So what if there are dozens of officially Muslim states and Christian states! We Jews are better than them. ) Then we won't upset the sleeping giants and we'll protect ourselves. Then maybe they won't be upset with us when we say we don't want millions of Palestinians to "return" to Israel.
Sarcasm aside, that strategy will work as well as it did before and during the Holocaust.
The Arabs know what Netanyahu maent. That is sufficient.
The real problem for Yoffie is that the Reform movement is unable to define what makes it Jewish; therefore he can not define a Jewish state.
What a shame. With his eminent position, the good rabbi could have courageously tackled the real threats and challenges facing the Jewish people.
The overarching issues facing Jews are: (1) an imminent nuclear armed Iran and the need to militarily prevent it now, and (2) the new U.S. administration is more anti-Israel than any since Israel's birth and is engaged in aggressive broad-based attacks on Israel.
These pose the present historic challenge for American Jews and for Israel:
There is an immediate urgent need for American Jews to support the Jewish State of Israel (and America's security interests) by urging American military action to prevent a nuclear armed Iran, and opposing the Obama administration's abandonment of America's support and alliance with the Jewish State of Israel.
Now is not the time for rabbis to dither with pilpul on the fine points of diplomatic language. (It is easy to lecture Israel's prime minister about the diplomatic term "Jewish State of Israel", but it takes courage to take on a dangerous American president.) Now is the time for what remains of the American Jewish community to stand up for our people's survival in our Jewish homeland. (I can only imagine how this language, "our Jewish homeland" must "grate" on "progressive Jewish" ears.)
The good rabbi should publicly rally his constituents to strongly and unapologetically support Israel, to insist that Obama not be the appeaser that George Bush warned us of in his speech to the Knesset. The rabbi should urge Jews to recognize the impending danger of a second Holocaust. He should rally them to engage their leadership and representatives to support military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
He should speak out strongly against the outrageous rhetoric and threats emanating from Obama's administration. He should speak out against the outrage of Israel being threatened to prevent it from physically defending itself from annihilation, the threatened cut-off of American military cooperation, the threatened American imposition of Israel's final borders (in contravention of prior understandings and despite there being no "peace partner"), the threat to not allow the "natural growth" of its Jewish communities, the threat that the U.S. will no longer protecting Israel on the Security Counsel against the most virulently anti-Israel U.N. in history. Obama's threats against Israel (and therefore the Jewish People)are a full frontal attack: security, military, diplomatic and political.
So where is the American Jewish community in Israel's time of need? Will the good rabbi find the courage to challenge Jews to face the ugly truth and rally against the policies of a popular president, and not to appease the appeasers? Will he stand up and demand, "Not in our name!"?
Now, a bit of my own musings: ... This article unwittingly demonstrates the dis-ease which pervades American Jewry, as exemplified by the "Reform" movement. In trying to assimilate, to belong, by being simply a "Jewish" religion, one of many "religions" in America, the Reform implicitly deny that we Jews are first and foremost a people.
The infection of left-wing "universalistic" politics into the Reform variant of American Judaism creates a standard by which assimilated Jews (and a number of outrageously virulent anti-Israel rabbis) use to judge and distance themselves from Israel and the People Israel. There are many far-leftist anti-Israel Jews, some of whom are politically active in their animus to the Jewish State of Israel, such as J-Street. You can see this antisemitism (anti-Zionism) often expressed in the posts on this and other left-wing web sites.
I do understand the rabbi's "P.R." concerns, particularly from a "liberal" American perspective that a "Jewish" State may "grate" on certain (left-wing) American ears, but where is his stand against the anti-Israel propaganda spewed for years by the "mainstream" media?
What I worry about is the lack of proud, clear, identification of American Jews as Jews, who do not imagine that Jews are simply a "religion". (It seems that the leftist Jews require their own "guide to the perplexed".)
The real "P.R." problem is the failure of American Jews to support Israel against the pro-arab, left-wing assaults on her actions and legitimacy. The American "mainstream" media has long been an anti-Israel propaganda apparatus. (Examples are the New York Times, LA Times, NBC, CNN, CBS, and so many, many others.) Various "Jewish" commentators and "leaders" routinely vilify Israel, giving credence to the most viscous and patent lies. Then there are "Reform" and other far-left "rabbis" who are clearly enemies of Israel and the Jewish people - these faux-rabbis (in fact - faux-Jews) are the most perversely dangerous and despicable of all, as they seek to attack Israel and undermine American Jews' support, while embracing the "palestinians" as their own, and giving credibility to vicious anti-Israel propaganda.
There is no reason to allow any credibility to the libels of our enemies. There are small groups (such as "CAMERA.org") who battle against the overwhelming propaganda, but why the deafening silence from the liberal Jews?
That is the challenge of the left-wing Jewish community: to PROUDLY accept the fact that the Jews are a people, entitled to our historic Jewish homeland, Israel. In fact, there has never been any people on the face of the earth with such a long, intense, legitimate right to its home. The entire world knows and should be (proudly) reminded of our story.
Obama just made a speech in Cairo, in which he recognized the "rights" of the "palestinian" people to a country. But in describing the Jews' right to our homeland, he failed to recognize the essence of the Jewish people's right to our Jewish State of Israel. This is an excerpt from a column concerning Obama's speech (from the Jerusalem Post) which I think states it well:
....
Yes, of course, denying the Holocaust is 'baseless, ignorant and hateful." And yes, "threatening Israel with destruction" does indeed serve "to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."
But our rights in this land are not predicated solely, or even primarily, on the tragedies that have befallen us during our history in exile. Those rights relate, rather, to the fact that we were in exile - from this land, this historic Jewish homeland. This is the only place on earth where the Jews have ever been sovereign, the place we never willingly left, the place to which we always prayed to return.
...
I hope that American Jews will find the courage to face the real life-and-death issues facing the Jewish People, and that the leaders of the communities, including this rabbi, will stand up the greatest dangers to face us since the Holocaust.
Frank,
"...the new U.S. administration is more anti-Israel than any since Israel's birth and is engaged in aggressive broad-based attacks on Israel."
Why do we need people who are anti-Israel when we have pro-Israel people like you?
Netanyahu's demand for recognition of Israel as A JEWISH state is an attempt to make Jewish whatever Israel occupied since the Six Days War. Sharon dropped Gaza in fear that all the Palestinian Israel inherited in its Six Days Expansion will not leave and will surrender governmental authority to Greater Israel. But these Palestinians will not leave and so long as they stay the issue is whether you give them citizenship or not. If given citizenship, they soon outnumber the Jews with Christian and Muslim Arabs. Then soon-- DEMOCRATICALLY-- they come to make Israel a bi-national or a non-religious state. So Netanyahu wants them to accept Israel as a Jewish state and, as it absorbs the Occupied Territories, the Palestinians-- not being Jewish and not given the option of converting-- will never be citizens, not being Jewish and will have to move out. In essence, phony territorial negotiations would then be over Jewish land of a Jewish state that they recognized as a preondition to any territorial negotiations. This assumption that Israel is dealing with "dumb goyim" could be its undoing. Only a fool does not know the Zionist myth that Jordan was created to clear the Arabs out of Palestine as "there is no such thing as Palestinians." Netanyahu will choke on this gimmick and, once again, will suffer humiliating loss of office unless the sets this nonesense aside. His economic first step was a really hopeful fisrt step preceeding negotiations. But this "I want it all" may well lead to Israel's demise as no one will be shamed into funding such an ideologic racist state, by itself TOTALLY non-viable. I hope he will stick to what he started because it was a very constructive step to de-enemyizing the Palestinians economically in preparation for a later two states solution.
Keep harping on this and you will soon see the bottom fall out of pro-Israel American goodwill.
The original 'right of return' terminology on the historical document did NOT refer specifically to Palestinians. Deliberately, there is no mention of Palestinians at all. This document referred to displaced groups in general, including the 1.m Jews who were expelled from Arab Countries - Arab countries which appropriated their real estate and capital, leaving Jews only with the shirts on their backs. To my knowledge, no Jews have been allowed back under 'right of return'. Also, to my knowledge, no countries elsewhere employ this term. At best, it can be seen as a 'feel good' phrase with no legal/political standing.
The British have a 'grandparent' stamp which gives those living outside Britain, but with a grandparent who was a citizen of Britain, the right to live in Britain and work for a period of time not permitted others. It does not bestow citizenship. Also, this priviledge does not extend to those furthe back with a great-grandparent.
The term indigenous Palestinian itself is very rubbery. During the war, Britain brought into the British Mandate of Palestine 100,000 Arabs from elsewhere, being unable to find enough workers in this territory. Palestinians of the British Mandate carried British passports, not Israeli. The many peoples who have migrated to Britain did/do so because they have entry based British passports. Based on this, the original Palestinians who have British passports would have legal right to live in Britain, not Israel.
Over 4.m 'Palestinian' Arabs (those who did not run in 1948 based on false fear tactics by their leaders, or by fear of being caught in the middle of the Six Day War), are Israeli citizens with all the rights citizenship bestows. Non-Israeli Palestinians prefer to work in Israel. Not only does it afford them better wages, but they are also given benefits, such as health etc, enjoyed by Israelis themselves.
Palestinians who live in Arab states live in parlous conditions, in camps, with no rights to education, decent employment, etc. They are employed in the meanest occupations. In Lebanon, these camps are surrounded by soldiers preventing entry of badly needed building materials to repair the hovels these people live in.
Although being 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation born in Arab countries, Palestinians have no citizenship standing, thus no benefits afforded other Arabs. Arab countries prefer to bring in peoples from outside according them many perks, housing, etc. rather than employ Palestinians. Isn't this the problem which the world should address?
In the rest of the world, birth within a country, confirms that country's national status, full citizenship and its protection.
How far along the generational line does one define one's nationality. Based on Palestinian example, I could be demanding right of return to at least five countries.
Palestinians should have a state of their own, and as modern as any Arab state in the Middle East, but whilst their leaders jockey (indeed murder) for power, exploit their people, embezzle billions (remember Arafat), whilst distracting Palestinians from these actions/inactions with hatred levelled at Israel, the Palestinian people will be in the same parlous situation another sixty years down the track.
I am not an Israeli. I come from a British colonial and British service background.
Typical gobblegook from a Yoffie who has been so wrong before, and is wrong now.
Is Mecca an open city?
How about demanding that the Palestinians stop being "Judenrein" and allow Jews to live in peace on THEIR TERRITORIES?
I'm sure Yoffie voted for Obama. They think alike, and their thinking is stinkin'
Oh, and DE Teodoru, the clown who is cheating either David Duke or Farrakhan of his shekels - of course I know he stepped up to the plate and offered our Messiah Child the full 900 mil for Hamas is back with his usual spew and vomit.
The anti-Semites like Teodoru never miss an opportunity for a diahrrea or vomit attack - and unfortunately the hand wringing Yoffies and the Democratic Party "JINOS" will always open the door for them to spew.
There's a commercial in the U.S. that says "friends don't allow other friends to drive drunk" which means a true friend saves you from harming yourself. Barack Obama is a true friend of Israel because if Israel continues on its present course of taking more and more land there will only be two solutions left to the conflict: either keep the Palestinians in a giant prison without any rights or else have a bi-national State. Neither of these two options are acceptable, and the best choice is a two State solution.
The settlers take badly needed money away from the elderly, the poor, the hungry and the disabled and it's long past the time that those funds were spent inside Israel to help those who truly need it.
There is a fantasy among the right wing in Israel that either the Palestinians will disappear or else go to Jordan. They don't understand the grievances of people who see someone from Chicago or New York move to a settlement on land taken from them who now call it theirs. The settlers have made a two State solution close to impossible.
I am Jewish, a moderate Democrat and a fervent supporter of Israel and I believe that President Obama is a true friend of Israel and a true friend sometimes has to tell you things you may not want to hear but in the long run are in your best interests, and he said those things yesterday in his speech.
Mark: Who do we do the two State solution with? Will we choose Hammas or a failed Fatah that controls the other half of a non state group. Nobody id stealing land from someone who does not own the land except in their own mind. Nothing from Previous UN descions or Whit Papers gave that land to a roaming band of Arabs.
Mark Jeffrery Koch,
I agree on a two state solution. However, the green line is an armistice line with Jordan, not an internationally recognised border. As such, Israel CAN breach the line in defence of its territory. This is internationally lawful. Until Arabs decide on/recognise a legitimate border - which they have constantly refused to do - Israel's 'encroachment' is entirely legal ... although many Jews themselves deplore the settlements. This means that Arabs have to recognise Israel's right to exist; then borders can be negotiated.
I believe that Israel must retain its Jewish identity; I don't see why even a non-Jewish majority should change this.
I lived for several years in a multi-racial/multi-religious, but Islamic country where Muslims were a minority. The Islamic calendar year prevailed ... respect to Ramadan fasting during working hours ... and ... calls to morning and evening prayer, etc. The population respected the dominant Islamic culture. Any attempts to convert a Muslim meant immediate deportation. Racial and religious tolerance prevailed.
Britain and most of Europe retains its origins in Christendom - their history, philosophies, architecture, literature, music and arts have arisen from these origins ... even though countries may perceive themselves as secular, they embrace such tradition with pride. Socialist countries which have thrown the baby out with the bathwater have lost much sense of cultural identity.
Twenty years ago archaeologists were greatly sought by small countries/regions to undertake in depth archaeological research of these territories. These peoples recognised that archaeological, pre-historic confirmation of their roots was needed to provide them with a true sense of identity and attachment to their land. This welded their people together within unique histories, giving them a great sense pride.
How much more than this, does the Jewish experience offer.
Going from oppressed to oppressor and from a DP camp to displacer are not the Jewish values I grew up with. Israel is a Zionist State. A state of mostly Jews yes, but a Jewish state never. Too many are making excuses, but Judaism has been co-opted by worship of the golden idol of Zionism.
Below is the chutzpah of "alan" an anonymous man who serves anti-Semitism better than a tousand NeoNazis in their bell-hop uniforms:
Oh, and DE Teodoru, the clown who is cheating either David Duke or Farrakhan of his shekels - of course I know he stepped up to the plate and offered our Messiah Child the full 900 mil for Hamas is back with his usual spew and vomit.
The anti-Semites like Teodoru never miss an opportunity for a diahrrea or vomit attack - and unfortunately the hand wringing Yoffies and the Democratic Party "JINOS" will always open the door for them to spew.
You would be a better Jew if you were more serious.
Mark Jeffery Koch - You have expressed satisfaction with President Obama's speech in Cairo. In this speech, the Holocaust was presented as the justification for the founding of Israel. In so doing, he has adopted the Arab perspective entirely: The Jews are not an ancient people with deep roots in the Middle East; rather, we are the victims of persecution in search of refuge. Not only has the president done an injustice to the Jewish drama of "exile and return", he has also sided with the Arab position and view of history. In this Arab view, the Jews are "foreigners", and "the Arabs are paying the price of European antisemitism". Many people, including Jews, seem to think that Israel was founded out of the ashes of the Holocaust. It's not true at all. Israel was founded DESPITE the Holocaust. The Holocaust destroyed the Jewish population of Europe - just a few hundred thousands survived and arrived in Israel after independence - and despite this tragic loss of our people, the yishuv succeeded in founding the state. The point of reference of the Jewish narrative is not the Holocaust; rather it is the destruction of the Second Temple and the exile from the homeland. "Zion" is the Temple Mount (hence "Zionism" was meant to evoke the memory of the glory of ancient Israel), and the symbol of the State of Israel is the menorah taken from the Temple, as depicted in Titus' Arch in Rome.
Alan Goldstein - you speak of the "golden idol", but obviously the term that you wished to use was the "golden calf". It makes me wonder if you indeed have such a strong background in Judaism. You speak of a "Zionist State" as if it is not Jewish. Zionism is one of the many Jewish ideologies born in the 19th century. Orthodoxy is another ideology of that era. So, by your logic, a particular community is not "Jewish" anymore (it's now "Orthodox"). Well, it's nonsense. The ethnicity of a state is not a matter of political ideology. Israel is the Jewish state by virtue of its ethnicity: the majority population is Hebrew-speaking, sees itself as the descendants of the ancient Jewish people - and as the modern-day continuity of Jewish history.
A definition of a true democracy is rule by majority with due respect, and equal civil rights, for all citizens. Avigdor Lieberman, and Religious Zionists, wish the State of Israel to be a Jewish Republic, just as Saudi Arabia is an Islamic Republic. The Jewish Republic of Israel could outlaw all other religions, and expel non-Jews. Does world Jewry wish to see several million Jews isolating themselves in a small area? The bottom line is that Israel cannot continue to keep the West Bank, with its millions of Palestinians, under occupation forever, and the State of Israel should strive for the true democracy that the founding fathers desired.
I believe that the Israeli people would never endorce such a state as Martin J. Weisman describes. From what I know, all Israeli citizens whatever their religion/race enjoy equal rights. Most Israeli Jews are not religious Zionists; indeed many answer to the description "secular". Israeli Jews are also quite vocal compared with the apparent "passivity" of other countries.
Perhaps Jews, worldwide, should take dual nationality and be permitted to vote in Israeli elections.
But there must be a Jewish state to ensure that Jews have a homeland. Jews have always been persecuted ... as we all know - and in ways unexpected.
During Hitler's reign, German and Austrian Jews received visas to enter Britain and its territories, its commonwealth. As soon as Britain entered the war these visas were overturned. Overseas departments didn't bother to notify Jewish applicants. Jews went to gas-chambers still anticipating their visas to arrive. I have seen the hastily scribbled departmental memos. Just one example:
" ... - German Jew refugee, resident in Paris, of military age. Permit to enter .... granted shortly before outbreak of war; subsequently cancelled"
This particular Jew (incidentally born Czechoslovakian, residing in Austria) had served honorably in the French army. Whilst awaiting his promised visa, he was arrested, and sent to a work camp. A year later, starved and butalized, no longer able to work, he was deported to Auschwitz, September 1942, and gassed on arrival. He was 22 yrs of age, he left a widow and a 2 yr old baby (their history was different, but still grim). Before her death, the widow stated that if they had been notified about the visa, they could have escaped elsewhere ...
Many times this was this played out; many entire families ...
And it wasn't just Britain that did this.
During the communist purge of Jews, Jews were denied entry into countries who feared "reds under the beds". In times of national emergency, countries shut their borders to those they perceive enemies. At such times, Jews will always be identified with "their" enemy countries, even if they themselves are being persecuted. Jews must have a homeland and a strong presence on the world stage of politics.
Palestinians should have control of the West Bank - although, undoubtedly expoited as usual by their leadership. Where is the accountability which should be demanded of donor countries?
Israel, however, must be permitted to ensure its protection from any aggressor.
Perhaps Egypt should resume control of Gaza. Gazans speak a different Arabic to those on the West Bank, have financial and familial ties to Egypt.
June 08, 2009
"Meanings of recognizing Israel"
"Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism in North America, has a piece in the Jewish Daily Forward arguing that it is a serious mistake for Israel to demand recognition of Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition for talks aimed at a peace settlement. The terms of Yoffie's argument strike me as misconceived. I don't say that Israel shouldn't negotiate without prior recognition. That's a matter of tactical judgement. If a negotiation looks feasible that will produce recognition as its result, then it is worth trying; and if not then possibly not. But Yoffie seems to me to displace that real tactical issue on to a set of different and less important concerns. One of these is what the precise sense of 'Jewish' in 'Jewish state' would be: even, or perhaps especially, amongst Jews it would be disputed. Then, talking about a Jewish state might grate on American ears and put in question the right of all Israel's citizens to full political and civil rights - even though the right is underwritten by Israel's own Declaration of Independence. And, most bizarrely of all, demanding recognition of Israel as a Jewish state cedes to others, according to Yoffie, the right to determine what kind of nation Israel should be.
But the demand is not about subtleties in the meaning of 'Jewish', or about qualifying the democratic nature of the Israeli state, much less about ceding the right of Jewish self-determination to external parties. The demand is about recognition plain and simple - recognition of the legitimacy of Israel. Yoffie's article simply confuses the matter.
Apropos: in the same issue of the Forward, see this report of a poll done at Tel Aviv University showing that 'public sympathy [in Israel] for settlers and the settlements is currently at an all-time low'."
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/06/meanings-of-recognizing-israel.html
Alan, DE Teodoru -- you two idiots truly deserve each other.