Harry’s Place

The Encycolpedia of Race and Racism? I can smell the PC from here. I bet a lot of the other entries are similarly ripe.

Required reading if you wish to be a qualified racist?

Isn’t there a ‘t’ in ‘tripe’, mesquito?

I googled Macmillan, to find out who owns it, and voila:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group

This is all I could find on Cengage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cengage_Learning

There is a “t” in tripe, but not a “t” in ripe. by ripe I mean rancid, malodorous, stinky.

Hmmm. Slightly tricky one. Zionism was created as a political movement formed at the high point of nationalism which often assumed an identity of race and nation. I suspect early Zionists probably did make such assumptions. We know that many early Kibbutzes were socialist and anti-religious in character.

The concept of Jewish identity seems to encompass religion, race, nation and culture.

I can’t say I’ve ever been clear in my own mind as to what basis Zionism preferred (prefers?) for citizenship of the new Zion. In reality as I understand it Israel uses a religious definition i.e. you don’t get in unless you meet some basic religious criteria.

Can a movement be based on race without being racist? Difficult. Clearly the victims of racism will often organise to defend themselves, which is when you get into all sorts of semantic difficulties.

Personally I think race is no basis for political or social organisation.

I think Jewish bodies were very misguided to seek protection of anti-racist laws to protect themselves from anti-semitism i.e. by defining Jews as a separate race.

Harris writes: “The term ‘collaboration’ implies two or more parties working together of their own free will towards a common, mutually agreed goal.
The term ‘collaboration’ ‘implies’ nothing about a “common ,mutually agreed goal”.

I don’t think most Zionists, especially modern, Reform Jews, intended to define Jews as a “race,” but rather as a civilization - and there is an enormous difference. Indeed Judaism itself isn’t limited by birth, but is accepting of converts without aggressively seeking them. The Jewish nation is a nation of all colors and races, and has been linked through thousands of years and around the world by culture, languages, religion and shared experience. Unfortunately, these experiences have all too often been horrific.

In any case, what were - and what are - Jews supposed to do? The fact is, we’ve been hounded nearly to extinction. Assimilation hasn’t worked, and people weren’t safe in the shtetl or the ghetto. Not only the uneducated people of Europe but royalty, of course the Church and its offshoots, the “intelligentsia” and various armies, all were liable at any time to turn on the Jewish community and apparently still are. Indeed we are advised that our inability to “get over” the Holocaust is causing antisemitism. I have actually been told this to my face.

This is unfortunately also the case in the Middle East, where religious bias has also caused Jews to be treated as second class citizens at best, openly preyed upon at worst - just looking at the population of Jews in the Middle East, North Africa and Iran around the time Israel’s establishment, one has to wonder - what happened to the rest? And in modern times religious bias has combined with Nazi and other European propaganda to create a truly toxic aura - in the current financial crisis, even in East Asia, where there are practically no Jews, there are assertions that we have caused the markets to crash.

So this isn’t just a problem in Christendom. But, in the past couple of centuries the attacks on Jews in the West became so brutal and so universal that modern Zionism was an attempt to save a people from extermination. Beyond that, it was intended as a means of redemption, to redeem a people who had been beaten down, but also separated from the land and from the dignity of labor.

I don’t see how this can be considered “racism”.

Sophia -

Using my categories, you seem to be putting forward Judaism as a category of “culture”.

I agree that the now vanished Jewish communities of the Middle East must not be forgotten.

I agree also that Zionism was a reaction to European anti-semitism. It was the Dreyfus case I believe that caused Herzl to conclude that Jews would never be accepted in European society.

My own view is that Palestine is the last place one would choose as a location for a Jewish refuge - surrounded by several hundred million Jew-hating Muslims. An historical opportunity to create a Central European Jewish state in Bavaria with Munich as its capital was missed at the end of the second world war. I believe it would have been a great success and together with France and W. Germany would have been the foundation for the EU.

But that is irrelevant now. One understands why Palestine became the focus of Zionism.

“the now vanished Jewish communities of the Middle East must not be forgotten.”

Of course not. Especially as they have not “vanished” but relocated–much as the Spanish Jews relocated to what is now Israel (most notably Safed) and Portugal and Amsterdam, the Jewish communities of the Middle east have relocated (by and large) to Israel but also to America and France.

Regards,

Inna

Since some people will look up “Zionism” in such a book, there should really be an entry. It should say something like “Hello philo or antisemite! Some people think Zionism is Racism, even the UN did for a bit. Sheesh. Some people. Some people are dicks.”

Leave comments for the publisher at http://www.gale.cengage.com/contact_list.htm?type=enhanceprod

mesquito There is a “t” in tripe, but not a “t” in ripe. by ripe I mean rancid, malodorous, stinky.

I like my fruit ripe. It is odorous and tasty.

If you meant rancid, malodorous, stinky, over ripe or rotten would have been the correct descriptions.

field, we already know your ideas about the unsuitability of the Middle East for a Jewish State. They derive from 1. Your hatred of Muslims, 2. Your ignorance of Jewish culture, and 3. Your intolerance of difference, most of the times disguised as an adoration of Democracy (as if Democracy meant that everyone must be exactly equal to one another).

You can keep them to yourself. I see that Alaska is too close to Russia and Texas to close to Mexico, so maybe you should relocate the Americans living there to Kansas, ok?

I can’t say I’ve ever been clear in my own mind as to what basis Zionism preferred (prefers?) for citizenship of the new Zion. In reality as I understand it Israel uses a religious definition i.e. you don’t get in unless you meet some basic religious criteria.

Ill informed bollocks from an Antisemite who obviously derives their Antisemitic outlook through complete falsehoods.

There is NO religious qualification to become a citizen of Israel. You simply have to prove that your mother was Jewish and you are, therefore, Jewish. No-one is going to give you a test of saying the blessing over bread or getting you to recite your Barmitzvah text.

Get it straight! “Jew” is someone belonging to the ethnic group of Jews by lineage. “Judaism” is a religion most likely followed by a Jew.

If Zionism is racially exclusive then why does the Declaration of Indpendence for Israel enshrine the equal rights of all non-Jewish citizens in Israel.

My own view is that Palestine is the last place one would choose as a location for a Jewish refuge - surrounded by several hundred million Jew-hating Muslims.

But how can that be? Most are Muslims and Islam is The Religion of Peace. By going home the Jews could establish their own defence without some Europeans limiting them. Jews avoided another Balkans. “Hey Jews, I know we tried to get you all in one place to exterminate you so how about all coming back to a state surrounded by the very Nazis who tried to exterminate you?” Why you ungrateful Jews!”.

field are you Syd Walker in disguise?

field misses something. According to his ilk the whole World is a Zionist State. I, myself, will go for Aliyah to Florida and “Next Year In New York!”

LOL!!

“field are you Syd Walker in disguise?”

What a stupid thing to say.

The AJC are right, all nationalism is racist…

Sorry, this is slightly off topic…
“All nationalism is racist.”…

…No, I don’t agree. Most people on the left automatically assume that it is but I remember , during the last world cup, walking through a part of South London that was almost exclusively Black. The windows of the flats and houses were draped with the English flag. Most leftists associate the flag with nasty narrow minded right wingers , but this was an instance where people of all racial types were expressing a sense of collective national identity over and above racial or other differences. Personally I found this reassuring because it revealed a cultural connection. The Lefts desire to promote multi-culturalism undermines that collective identity and leads to a balkanisation of society and the concurrent tensions that go with it.

Sheleylee,

and why should we commend people unifying round various accidents of brith? (most people who qualify for citizenship do so on that basis, and some citizens I believe have had their citizenship stripped). Further, why should we laud adherence to the local hegemonic culture? If we look at the bureuacratic model of citizenship (anyone is a citizen who the state says so) that means that such “shared identity” becomes otiose sinxce there is no commonality otehr than that which the state says there is. Now, a common Human identity, that is meaningful, but nationalism is as much pernicious rot as you claim multiculturalism to be (in fact, isn’t nationalism a species of multiculturalism?)…

Maven, Field misses quite a lot. Read this:

Personally I think race is no basis for political or social organisation

So, for example, there shouldn’t be a Japanese state?

In any event, he conflates ‘race’ and ‘nation/ethnos’. There is no Jewish ‘race’, because there is no such thing as ‘race’ in any meaningful sense in the first place.

My own view is that Palestine is the last place one would choose as a location for a Jewish refuge

Unfortunately, those stupid Jews forgot to check with you first, before deciding to return to their own homeland.

An historical opportunity to create a Central European Jewish state in Bavaria with Munich as its capital was missed at the end of the second world war. I believe it would have been a great success and together with France and W. Germany would have been the foundation for the EU.

Very amusing. I almost laughed. Of course, your history is highly wonky throughout your posts, since you don’t seem to realise that there was Zionism without being called Zionism for several decades before Herzl. Check the founding dates of quite a few modern Israeli towns.

One understands why Palestine became the focus of Zionism.

You couldn’t make it up.

and why should we commend people unifying round various accidents of brith?

Is this a Freudian slip? My understanding is that Jewish girls don’t have a brith ceremony.

No, it’s me and my lousy typing, I had to look brith up to get your joke…

They do if they have a son. I’ll get my coat.

Maven,

You claim “There is no religious qualification to become a citizen of Israel. You simply have to prove that your mother was Jewish and you are, therefore, Jewish.”

You state this as if having a Jewish mother was in itself a necessary and sufficient condition for obtaining citizenship. But I always understood that converts to Judaism with no Jewish relatives could become Israeli citizens, and also that people who had a Jewish mother but had later converted to some other religion were not eligible for Israeli citizenship. Hence, having a Jewish mother is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition.

1) In support of its not being a necessary condition, from the Jewish post (21 Nov 06):

“Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar has proposed amending the Law of Return so that converts to all three principal streams of Judaism - Reform, Conservative and Orthodox - would no longer be eligible for automatic Israeli citizenship…

If Amar’s proposal is approved by the Knesset, only Jews born to a Jewish mother or other relatives of Jews currently covered by the Law of Return would be entitled to automatic citizenship”.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378443249&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

From what I can gather, Rabbi Amar’s opinion has not been made law.

2) In support of its not being a sufficient condition, from the New York Times (27 Dec 1989):

“Messianic Jews are not entitled to automatic Israeli citizenship, Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled, concluding that their belief that Jesus was the Messiah makes them Christians instead of Jews.

The ruling, published in Israeli newspapers today, supported Orthodox religious interpretations of the state’s 1950 Law of Return. The law forms the basis of Jewish immigration to Israel.

The law and its subsequent amendments define a Jew as a person born to a Jewish mother or who converts to Judaism and professes no other faith. An Issue Is Resolved.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDB1439F934A15751C1A96F948260

I don’t believe that this rule has changed either.

In short, if you do not have a Jewish mother, you are still entitled to automatic Israeli citizenship if you convert. But to convert you have to show a considerable knowledge of the Jewish faith.

If, however, you have a Jewish mother but have converted to some other faith you are not entitled to automatic Israeli citizenship, but must reconvert.

So it would seem that you must satisfy some religious qualifications to become a citizen of Israel.

“field are you Syd Walker in disguise?”

What a stupid thing to say.

Yes, I know. I realise that now. I shall assume the penitent child to your fatherly rebuke and say sorry. I won’t do it again. Don’t send me to my room! Not sure why it was ’stupid’ but obviously when I grow up I will understand. If you tell me I promise to write it out 50 times.

Bad Maven! Naughty Maven!

and why should we commend people unifying round various accidents of brith?

Is this a Freudian slip? My understanding is that Jewish girls don’t have a brith ceremony.

PLEASE! Don’t mention the word “Accident” or “Slip” in the same sentence as “brith”. And when we refer to “Freudian”. Shudder!

BTW - Nearly Oxfordian, I think I’ll adopt you as my cyber-parent because David T has shouted at me and we seem to get on well together.

Maven, as long as our relative ages are appropriate, I shall be honoured! ;-)

… and sorry, yes, I realised later that the juxtaposition of those words was a little unfortunate. But the pun seemed to me irresistible. I have been told irl that I pun too much.

Nearly Oxfordian, Thank You! Relative ages by counting years can be irrelevant. Emotional or Reading Ages will do for me!!!

I often act 30 years younger than I am. But then they say I look young for my age so it must help.

There is no Jewish ‘race’, because there is no such thing as ‘race’

and because Jews define themselves as an “am” which translates as “people”. Which you can join by having a Jewish mother or converting. Ignatiev’s claim that Zionists “shared the [Nazi] belief that the Jews were a racial community based on blood” is actually a claim about Judaism. Ignatiev is saying that Judaism is racist and like Nazism. Similarly his claim that Zionism has a concept of racial superiority is pure racism.

Norm has a fine post up by Eve Gerrald here

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/10/jews-and-zionism—two-narratives-by-eve-garrard.html

OT for a lighter moment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4adxe5N6Ato

Interesting, Maven. Your second para. fits me to a T.

Also, not to belabor a point, but the idea that Austria and Germany would accept a Jewish state on part of The Fatherland is ridiculous in the extreme.

Seriously, please think about what happened in WWII.

And - please think of the origins of the terms “Judea” and “Hebron”, just to take a couple of examples. Have people completely forgotten how to read a history book?

As for those universalists in our midst - who apparently believe we should all be alike - whom should we be like? Should the Chinese and Japanese, with their ancient cultures, be like Germans? Should Muslims be forced into the Presbyterian Church? Should Christians all become followers of animist cults? Should Brits all become French?

Given that most nation-states evolved out of cultural and/or religious and language groups, aren’t the anti-nationalists really saying that peoples’ uniqueness should be dissolved? But into what?

A huge problem folks seem to have with Jews is simply that Jews have remained a distinct group over a very long period of time.

Why is distinctness per se an affront - to anybody?

To take this a step further: aren’t we seeing some of this anti-differentness in the US Presidential elections, wherein the forces of Be Like Us Or Else are claiming that Barack Obama is somehow - unAmerican? Listen to the growls of the mob - isn’t that familiar somehow? Don’t we hear “Kill the Jew”? If not, we are not listening.

Zionism has nothing to do with trying to make everybody the same, with trying to enslave other peoples or enforce a code of racial superiority. It has to do with trying to save the lives and futures of a people who are no less a nation than Japan, yet who within their own small community are highly individualistic and diverse.

I repeat: how is this racist?

In fact I concur with comments above: that MacMillan would publish such tripe is bigoted in the extreme as well as historically and factually wrong.

“Now, a common Human identity, that is meaningful, but nationalism is as much pernicious rot as you claim multiculturalism to be (in fact, isn’t nationalism a species of multiculturalism?)…”

Fabulous example of incoherence there.

A ‘a common human identity’ is meaningful only in as much as it is internally meaningful to you. The great advantage in saying that you believe in ‘a common human identity’ is that it imposes no burden on you that you don’t set on yourself, and it requires no shared beliefs, shared experience, or shared responcibility. It is purely and entirely a ‘feel good belief’. It’s never particularly scary to believe in ‘a common human identity’ because you get to be the sole arbiter of what that means or what that requires of you. There is no external reviewer. There is no externally imposed duty.

As a result, ‘a common human identity’ is in practice completely meaningless. It’s what people believe in when they don’t want their beliefs to be inconvienent or uncomfortable. You can only let yourself down, and you don’t have to be hard on yourself. If for example anyone actually believed in a common human identity, they’d drop everything and rush off to the Sudan to help their brothers their. But they don’t. They wouldn’t mind if someone else did, they’d even cheer for it, and they feel vaguely bad that bad things are happening there, but they don’t really feel an obligation to do anything except complain. So they put things like, ‘Free Tibet’ on the bumpers of their cars, but they’d never actually take any steps to free Tibet because it would interfere with what they actually consider important in their lives. Actually having a duty to the people of Tibet would be too inconvienent.

The thing about having a national identity is not that it percludes having an obligation to any other group, but that it imposes on you an obligation to at least someone in a very real, meaningful, and tangible way. The wonderful thing about imagining that there is no country, no religion too, is that we get to imagine a fairy tale world where we have no responcibilities and can always do just what we want. The people caught up in that fantasy never consider that in the real world, the best example of a society with no country, no religion, and no group identity is a place like the Sudan or the slums of Sao Paolo. It’s a world where the strong eat the weak without reservation. It’s a world of petty violence, revenge, and abuse where the strongest attachment one might have is to a few accidental neighbors who are at war with an accidental collection of other neighbors over something or the other of value.

Shared humanity indeed. But what are they sharing from our common human heritage? What indeed do we have in common if you boil us down to nothing but a ‘human identity’? Is it necessarily beautiful?

One of the most common traits of humanity is self-centeredness. Nationalism, religion, or even racism doesn’t create that self-centeredness, it’s merely the manifestation of it on a broader scale. There are many problems with claiming that our highest allegiance should be to a shared human identity, some of which as Sophia points out is that we’d have a hard time figuring out what would really unite us, but in my opinion the chief of these is that an obligation to everything usually works out to be an obligation to nothing. The scale is simply too big, and no functional ethical system has ever relied on such a vague definition of obligation. Even when they background ‘obligation to humanity in general’ its always at the lowest practical level of obligation because such a vague obligation as ‘obligation to everyone’ as opposed to ‘obligation to my neighbor standing right here’ allows you easy justification for shirking doing anything which is onerous.

Largely excellent post, Sophia. Of course most people don’t know how to read a history book, or else are wilfully choosing not to read one. Most antisemites belong to one or the other.

But then you spoiled it, I am afraid, with your Obama rant. It’s not his ‘otherness’ that’s the problem: it’s the fact that he is an inexperienced, arrogant nonentity who only lies when his lips move.

celebrim:
Yes to all that. Humans are tribal, that’s part of who we are. Denying it is denying human nature, and we know where that tends to lead.

Nearly Oxfordian: The biggest irony in the Obama rant is that Obama spent the better portion of his life, and raised his children in a religious institution that does not proclaim (per its web page) a ‘non-negoitable’ commitment to ones fellow man, or a ‘non-negoitable’ commitment to the Gospel of Christ, but a non-negoitable commitment to its African identity.

Now if I’d ever even accidently walked into the door of a church that preached a non-negoitable commitment to Aryan identity and stayed through the service, I’d have by that act alone disqualified myself in the eyes of many people (myself included) to be a leadership position on anything. But Barack Obama can raise his kids in a Church which has a very loud and very public and very exclusionary racially centred doctrine and he not only gets a complete pass on it, but any criticism of The One gets you branded as a racist and by insinuation is comparable to wanting to load Jews into boxcars?

Please. I could careless what you skin color is. I’ve had friends, Pastors, doctors, teachers, and mentors with a different color skin than I have, but none of them had a ‘non-negoitable’ commitment to people of their skin color. If they had have had such a commitment (like the black man that told me white people couldn’t get into Heaven because they didn’t have souls), then it might well be a fair question whether their identity excluded them from having any loyalty to me and mine.

From Field An historical opportunity to create a Central European Jewish state in Bavaria with Munich as its capital was missed at the end of the second world war. I believe it would have been a great success and together with France and W. Germany would have been the foundation for the EU.

Not only does the mind boggle, it shivers and runs for cover. Field was born way too early. He could have written for Der Stürmer.

Some points:-

1. I don’t think it’s worth spending too much time on the might have beens of history but I will simply note: (a) the permanent dismemberment of Germany was actively considered and was the favoured plan before Yalta (b) most ordinary Germans were consumed with guilt after the holocaust and accepted they would be punished (c) Zionism as originally conceived did not specify that the Jewish state had to be in Palestine.

I think there would have been poetic justice in making Bavaria, birthplace of Nazism, the Jewish state and it would have provided a refuge for Jews from across Europe who - as in Poland - were being denied return to their place of birth.

2. Seymour - why is it Nazi-like to argue that Germany should pay a significant price for its murder of the Jews?

3. Nearly Oxfordonian - It’s amazing how many errors you can compress into such short posts. Anyway, twas not I who was arguing that there was anything corresponding to a Jewish “race” but I know many British Jews have argued there is.

To argue that founding the Jewish state in Palestine was not the greatest move, is I am afraid just me being realistic. This tiny sliver of land is highly vulnerable to attack by the millions of fanatics around that neighbourhood.

4. Sophia - read my post. I am not arguing for the Jewish state to be founded in Bavaria now. I was talking about an historical might have been.

Your critique of universalism is misplaced. A World Union does not require people to abandon their cultural identity in any way whatsoever (except insofar as their cultural identity might be based around war and domination of others). I am no fan of the European Union, but I have never believed for a moment that it makes the Italians less Italian.

5. Fabian issues the usual libels. I don’t hate Muslims. I do detest Islam. That’s my right. What does Fabian like about Islam? I am not ignorant of Jewish culture, although I don’t claim deep knowledge. But I know that Zionists initially were receptive to the idea of founding a state somewhere other than Palestine, so I think it’s Fabian who is displaying ignorance (well, actually faux ignorance, since I am sure he is well aware of the fact). If Zionists could entertain the idea then I don’t see why I am not allowed to. I am not intolerant of difference, only difference which seeks to destroy the democracy which most of us want to preserve: that’s why I vigorously oppose Nazis and Islamic fanatics.

5. Maven seems to be ravin’. For the record: I am not an anti-semite. I support the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself (including bombing the sh** out of the Mad Mullah Mass Murder Weapon Sites.

Red Deathy

Yes, multi cultualism is often an expression of multiple national identities. Which is its inherent contradiction. Why should the culture of the nation, having evolved over time simply be replaced or put on an equitable footing with cultures of other nation states. My point is that people do gravitate to group identities regardless. You may think that if we remove the nation state then we will live happily ever after. I dont. I’m British and I can share that identity with different creeds and ethnic groups. However if I define myself by my religion or colour then I can’t be the other.
I dont’ agree with your points of view and you dont’ with mine. Fine.

local hegemonic culture?….

Nearly Oxfordonian - It’s amazing how many errors you can compress into such short posts

Since you are almost entirely devoid of any knowledge of Jewish history, and even less understanding of it, and I know quite a bit about it, your statement is a classic case of a total fool with a little learning mocking the experts.

… have even less understanding of it …

And it can do with repeating: you are an ignorant fool who has read a few books randomly, without understanding them at all.

But I know that Zionists initially were receptive to the idea of founding a state somewhere other than Palestine

Spouting this ignorant nonsense and accusing Fabian and Maven of being ignorant … some Zionists were prepared to consider this idea out of desperation. Many rejected it as ridiculous.

You know what they say: people in shattered glass houses might as well go ahead and throw stones.

Thanks socialrepublican for the link @ 1:55 pm to Eve Gerard’s excellent critique of the internal contradictions and what I would call the arrogant Christocentric assumptions plaguing Geoffery Wheatcroft’s snide, hypocritical and patronizing attitude toward political self determination for Jews.

Field:

Even were it to have had a scant few British supporters like yourself, a Jewish state in Bavaria would have had no legitimacy amongst an overwhelming majority of Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries nor for that matter any legitimacy amongst an overwhelming number of Christian Bavarians. As for poetic justice, perhaps you ought to first consider dividing England and Scotland into Native American, First Nation and Aboriginese nation states.

When it comes to Jewish aspirations for political self determination, isn’t it remarkable how quick those who consider themselves entirely free from and unencumbered by religious and national identity baggage in majoritarian Christian states reveal themselves to be Christocentric after all.

Given the anti-semitic distortions peddled by the Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, does it contain a reference to itself?

I can see an endless chain of self-reference, finally disappearing up its own arse where it belongs.

I wouldn’t be opposed to a second Jewish state (or a third or a fourth). Even a more liberal one. They would be to one another sort of like the UK and Poland, both Christian countries, but one more biased towards religion than the other.
Then the discourse wouldn’t be: can there be a Jewish state? (horror) but: which Jewish country do you want to visit in these holidays, dear? Why not both? It will be an experience!

“Fabian issues the usual libels. I don’t hate Muslims. I do detest Islam. That’s my right. What does Fabian like about Islam?” (field)

Field, I am Jewish. I don’t need to like anything about Islam or Christianity. But I don’t have to hate it either.

If you had asked me what do I like about Christianity, I would have answered, nothing but Gothic Cathedrals.

But I won’t become an anti-Christian bigot like you are an anti-Muslim bigot. Islam is what Muslims practice in the conditions they live. You think that every Muslim wants to become a pedophile. It is as ridiculous as if I claimed that every Christian wanted to torture and burn heathens.

You are a bigot.

Lbnaz -

I think a Jewish state in Bavaria would have had the legitimacy of necessity - just as in the case of Israel (or Palestine before independence) for millions of Jews. I think it is a moot point whether the millions of Jews made homeless in Eastern Europe would have headed for Palestine rather than Bavaria in such conditions of necessity after the war.

But I agree such speculation is pretty pointless.

Fabian - There was of course Stalin’s Jewish autonomous region - in fact I think it still exists in some sense. But I think it was just another of his bad jokes probably.

I trust the powers that be at Macmillan USA have commissioned an article about caucasian Americans for their pseudo-encyclopedia on race by either Reverend Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan. And if not, why not? I mean it’s not as if Noel ‘race traitor’ Ignatiev’s views and revisionist distortions (which can be read at Counterpunch where he is a contributor along with Atzmon, Michael Neumann and “Israel Shamir”) differ significantly from those of the aforementioned luminaries.

I think a Jewish state in Bavaria would have had the legitimacy of necessity - just as in the case of Israel (or Palestine before independence) for millions of Jews

More of the same self-parody from Field. The legitimacy of Israel is that it is the homeland of the Jewish nation.

“But I agree such speculation is pretty pointless.” (field)

And still you come up with it thread after thread. You never listen, you know? You never learn.

“Fabian - There was of course Stalin’s Jewish autonomous region - in fact I think it still exists in some sense. But I think it was just another of his bad jokes probably.”

Indeed, Jews in Birodizjan never were more than 10% of the population. They were brought, or came naively convinced that it was a real plan from other parts of the Soviet Union (so much for the legitimacy that state would have among the native population of the region), it was never a truly Jewish region (it couldn’t in any real sense be), it was somehow “binational”, it was never a sovereign state (it was part of the Soviet Union), it was meant to be rural (to bring back Jews to the land) but the conditions of agriculture under Stalin were, how to put it, not very tantalizing, and most of the Jews who emigrated there had never been in contact with the land), and finally, it had not a trace of Jewish attraction, that could have made Jews forget the rest of the disadvantages.

Israel worked (in spite of the Arabs, in spite of the British, in spite of the 30s depression, in spite of the Holocaust) because it was and is Eretz Israel.
Birobidzan, like Bavaria, are… well… what are they? I can’t find them in my Tanach (Bible)…

Field
You’ll never understand what it is that’s tying jews to the land of Israel. For 2000 years jews have repeated the words “next year in Jerusalem” when celebrating the Passover Seder. Zionism avant la lettre. As Fabian said, it is (almost) all in the Tanach. Our history. Our ancestors. Our ties to Jerusalem. Your premises are false - you assume jews came to Palestine because Herzl told them so. Herzl told jews to come to Palestine because his family’s members have repeated the words “next year in Jerusalem” for 2000 years, too.

Nearly Oxfordian
Do you ever sleep?

Eh? I sleep very soundly for 8 hours every night, ta very much!

My work is mostly done on a computer. I take regular breaks to stretch my legs and my shoulders and make tea with nana, and while it’s brewing and inbetween and while d/l files and general email, I pop in here.

Pisa and Fabian: you are looking in the wrong place. It’s not in the Tanach but in the Talmud, masekhet Ashkenaz: amar rav yossi, eretz israel hi ashkenaz, kma she-ne’emar: al tishal ma ashkenaz yekhola la’asot bishvilkha, sh’al ma tukhal ata la’asot bishvil ashkenaz: ve-khulano berlinerim.

Fabian: when you said ‘we would like to know’ yesterday, who exactly is ‘we’? Not the shabakh, I sincerely hope.

N.O. : hahaha.

“Fabian: when you said ‘we would like to know’ yesterday, who exactly is ‘we’? Not the shabakh, I sincerely hope.”

Why, did you leave the arnona unpaid?

Maven,

You say “There is no religious qualification to become a citizen of Israel. You simply have to prove that your mother was Jewish and you are, therefore, Jewish.”. But this seems incorrect.

First, you do not have to have a Jewish mother to get Israeli citizenship – you can be a convert. Second, if you are a convert, then to get Israeli citizenship you have to prove that you have been converted in an approved way; but the conversion process, unsurprisingly, has a large religious component. So if you were not born of a Jewish mother, you must, as Field says, “meet some basic religious criteria”.

From the Jerusalem post (3 Oct 08)

“The case underlines the complexities created in Israel, where religion and citizenship are so closely related…

However, Amar, the supreme authority for conversions, vets the candidates, and in fact many candidates are rejected, sources close to Amar said.

The candidate was also expected to receive the recommendation of an observant adoptive family that could testify to the religious observance and commitment of the prospective convert.

Finally, the candidate was requested to stipulate that he or she would not ask for Israeli citizenship after the conversion for at least two years.

Under the Law of Return, converts to Judaism are entitled to automatic citizenship.”

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017444776&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Pisa -

I have read a bit of history believe it or not and I do appreciate the emotional pull of the Holy Land. Don’t forget Christians feel something similar and laid claim to the land (and made good the claim) for reasons of religion for several hundred years.

But if you look at this with cold realism (and that must be the position of the majority of Jews around the world who still say “next year” but don’t do anything about it for the next twelve months despite there being no impediment to them going), the Levant is a very dangerous place for Jews to live as missile technology spreads out to the Islamic fanatics.

Nearly O -

You can assert that Land X is your homeland. But in this case someone else is also claiming Land X is their homeland. And the “someone else” is an increasingly powerful entity in terms of the damage it can afflict on the other claimants. That is the reality. If you choose to ignore the reality that’s your business - doesn’t stop the train coming down the track.

Its unhelpful and misleading to portray all anti-zionists as anti semites as it is to portray all zionists as racists.

Idiots like Atzmon and Shamir are a gift to the defenders of the Status quo, as their blantant anti semitism undermines those fighting for the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

Since ‘Judaism’ refers to the religion and traditions of the people and land of ancient Judea then Judaism is Essentially zionist. It certainly is still in its festivals, litergy, and even which direction we place the Torah Arc in. Even the ‘fundie’ wingnuts of Naturei Karta are zionists, they differ only in that they seem to believe that only, and only, some magical mythical figure is allowed to bring about a return to the land of the Fathers (and Mothers). They have no, that is none whatsoever, rabbinical nor scriptural authority for that belief.

Modern Zionism is as much a part of the millenia old religious tradition as it was a counter to C19th European antisemitism and the ‘unnatural’ kind of society that Jews found themselves in due to imposed and enforced restrictions on occupation and frequent forced migrations, deportations and resettlements. Modern Zionism as a political organisation is still primarily dealing with antisemitism mostly, the rest is the internal and infernal politics of being a Nation amongst Nations. The Jews can, if they like, claim that they created the first ideology of a Nationality as an inclusive and universalist mode of government. Just see ‘Exodus’.

Some fuktards that ideologically need to degrade the idea of Nationalism for some pie-in-the-sky stateless, borderless world can be justifiably sneered at as the yesterdays-religious-fanatics that they are.

Modern Zionism is as much as child of the Romantics as of the Rationalists.

It is as much of Right as it is of the Left (and the Centre).

To equate it with racism is merely to repackage the antisemtism of both Left and Right, which are indistinguishable in tha regard since they view the religious tradition of the Jews as their most dangerous enemy. And so it is as it represents common sense.

Phil R. just as in Greece, if you are a citizen of another country, you have to prove you are Greek enough to get the citizenship. Not surprisingly, it is not only Greek language that you have to know, to be Orthodox Christian helps a lot, and all the process is carried on at the discretion of Church officials and bureocrats.
Try to get Greek citizenship if you are a Muslim from Egypt, lets say.

Nearly Oxfordian: Very good, except for ve-khulano berlinerim: I believe that to be a mistranslation- the original text would read kulanu suvganiot.

BTW, you are confusing everything, Phil R.

You can get Israeli citizenship in several ways:

1. You are Jew.
2. You are not a Jew but at least your granfather was one.
3. You are married with a Jew and both immigrate together.
4. You are not a Jew, but you stay legally five years in the country, and as in many other places in the world, you can apply for citizenship (I know a guy from Cuba who did exactly that).
5. You convert to Judaism abroad under Reform, Conservative or Orthodox streams.
6. You convert to Judaism in Israel under recognized Orthodox ways.

So my question is: Phil R., do you want to get Israeli citizenship, or do you collect all this information for research purposes?

Forgot: 7. You are not a Jew, but you are born in Israel of an Israeli citizen.

Because I have a task for you, Phil R.
I need you to compare the requirements for Citizenship of the following countries:
1. Israel.
2. Jordan.
3. Armenia.

I have read a bit of history believe it or not and I do appreciate the emotional pull of the Holy Land. Don’t forget Christians feel something similar and laid claim to the land (and made good the claim) for reasons of religion for several hundred years.

But if you look at this with cold realism (and that must be the position of the majority of Jews around the world who still say “next year” but don’t do anything about it for the next twelve months despite there being no impediment to them going), the Levant is a very dangerous place for Jews to live as missile technology spreads out to the Islamic fanatics.

It is not for non-Jews to tell Jews whether or not their country is ‘too dangerous’. Frankly, the only proper reply to that is ‘mind you own fucking business’.

You can assert that Land X is your homeland. But in this case someone else is also claiming Land X is their homeland. And the “someone else” is an increasingly powerful entity in terms of the damage it can afflict on the other claimants. That is the reality. If you choose to ignore the reality that’s your business - doesn’t stop the train coming down the track.

The train is still there.

Sorry - the italics should stop at ‘Where do you …’.

Ami,
Yes, but I wanted to mimic JFK’s bloomer.

Its unhelpful and misleading to portray all anti-zionists as anti semites

Well, no, it is not misleading. Anti-Zionism means opposing the right of the Jews to their independent country in their homeland.

Fabian, the Shabakh deals with arnona now?

Do you know what the ש”ב deals with, then? :)

JFK’s bloomer: Now we are talking about lechem?

Nearly Oxfordian

Who are “The Jews” - what about the many who have spoken out against the crimes of the Israeli state (including Israelis themselves)
Not every Jewish person identifies with Israel, whether for political or religious reason.
Jewish people have a right to live in the “Holy land” as do the millions of Palestinians ethnically cleansed in 1948 and occpied after 1969.
No excuse for Hamas’s terror but equally none for the crimes going on in Gaza!

“Who are “The Jews” ”

I don’t think you know.

“No excuse for Hamas’s terror but equally none for the crimes going on in Gaza!”

Couldn’t agree more. Thanks to Olmert (!), there are no more Jews in Gaza to blame for the crimes.

“Jewish people have a right to live in the “Holy land” as do the millions of Palestinians ethnically cleansed in 1948 and occpied after 1969.”

I don’t have anything to do with it. I came to Israel in the year 2003. Just like my family went to Argentina in 1890, a decade after the last major mass murdering of natives in that country. Nobody blamed them. Nobody can blame me.

I am not even going to dignify Nick’s ignorant, screeching antisemitic rant with a reply.

LOL, ami.

Fabian: well, officially it’s internal security. Do you know otherwise?

Nearly Oxfordian: I wondered where to begin with Nick, then looked at the ignorance of “millions” “ethnically cleansed” and “1969″ (eh?) and thought sod it, the ignorance is so dense it’s not worth even attempting to chip away.

Nearly O says:

“It is not for non-Jews to tell Jews whether or not their country is ‘too dangerous’. Frankly, the only proper reply to that is ‘mind you own fucking business’.”

Well that’s simply a crude polemical position. The facts are that Israel has always relied on the support of outside states for its survival. Since 2000 aid to Israel from the USA has amounted to $2,500-$4,000 million per annum. That’s up to $600 per Israeli - a lot of money.

My view is that Israel deserves our support. It’s a legitimate state and a democracy and it appears at least to have given up on the project fo expanding its borders. Most of the support now is military in nature - which is right given the threats it faces.

However, a chauvinist position on Israel is a non-starter. There needs to be a clear indication that Israel understands the Holy Land is important to at least three religious traditions; there needs to be a clear commitment to a two state resolution with Jerusalem as a shared capital with an international aspect; and there needs to be a recognition that part of the conflict resolution will involve addressing the issue of Arabs who left the area now constituting Israel (along with a lot of other issues). I was encouraged to read recently that Israeli leaders were recognising now that part at least of Jerusalem must be relinquished as part of any solution.

I would hasten to add though that it is still the Palestinians who need to make the real moves: giving up on the genocidal project and renouncing terrorism. Defeat of Hamas will be stage 1 of any solution.

Quite so, ami.

Field is about as ignorant and thick as Nick, albeit slightly less antisemitic, so I’ll give up on him also. He seems to think that just because he is a Christian and attends mass in some church in Ruislip or Peterborough, he can dictate to Israel that it ‘must’ agree to an international Jerusalem to satisfy his personal yearnings.

” There needs to be a clear indication that Israel understands the Holy Land is important to at least three religious traditions; there needs to be a clear commitment to a two state resolution with Jerusalem as a shared capital with an international aspect” (field)

Of course. The day you internationalize New York and make it a shared capital with Israel and China (because of Chinatown).

Indeed, N.O. And field can’t even say that he likes Jerusalem. Actually he has said that he would never visit it.

Fabian -

I think your memory’s playing tricks with you Fabian. I never said I didn’t like Jerusalem or didn’t want to visit it. I disputed your claim about it being the fount of all civilisation which everyone wants to visit. I think I indicated that there might be other places associated with civilisation that people might want to visit - Rome, Florence, Venice, Paris, Amsterdam for instance and that Jerusalem wouldn’t be top of my personal list.

As for the point about New York, the position is that no one else is able to mount an effective claim to that city. There is no need to share it.

Fabian,

no, I think One State is a good idea, but tried out in Europe, first,

a one State Europe, no barriers, all the same lingo, let Europe and the British prototype the idea, first.

but, of course, we know that won’t happen

a lot of Brits almost start to hyperventilate when you say “European superstate” and so it shows their level of hypocrisy by advocating something that they are loath to try on themselves

There are forms of Anti-Zionism that are not Anti-Semitic. I speak mainly of Jewish theological anti-Zionism such as that held by many in the Haredi communities.

This form of anti-Zionism is motivated by a burning love for both Jews and the Land of Israel.

Someone mentioned that Neturei Karta have no scriptural support for their views. I think in the interest of fairness, it is important to point out two details.

1) Neturei Karta contains two factions, the smaller of which, is infamous for it’s fraternising with Arafat, Achmadinijad, and many other unpleasant characters.

2) The mainstream Neturei Karta faction, who’s views are similar to Satmar, Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon etc, does have scriptural support for the position they hold. Refer to the book Vayoel Moshe for details.

I do believe, that secular, political anti-Zionism, is indeed in most cases, a form of anti-Semitism.

Nearly O -

I think you’re seriously deluded.

Why do you think I attend Mass? And why do you think I have “personal yearnings” towards Jerusalem which shape my views on the desirability of it being internationalised?

Sorry to disillusion you but Jerusalem is a concern for every human being on the planet. If Jews and Muslims start lobbing nuclear warheads at each other, the whole planet is going to get poisoned.

Weird.

I am sorry, field, because you attend Mass, you need sovereignty rights over a city in another country? And because I listen to The Doors I can claim sovereignty rights over Los Angeles?

Sorry to disillusion you but Jerusalem is a concern for every human being on the planet.

And that gives you the right to demand sovereignty over it?

Weird.

You sure are. And ignorant, deluded, demented and seriously in need of professional help.

The Hasbara -

It’s Nearly O who has the delusional belief that I attend Mass. It’s not actually true. However, I do believe that if the Jews have the right to Jersualem on the basis of religious belief, then so do Christians and Muslims.

Anyway, far from being an extreme position, it is quite clear that Israe’s government are prepared to share Jerusalem. Personally I feel that the best way to do this is to have part of it internationalised.

let’s internationalise London!

It’s Nearly O who has the delusional belief that I attend Mass. It’s not actually true

The simple-mindedness of this sorry specimen is gob-smacking. My point was that being a Christian gives you fuck-all claim to political power in Jerusalem.

However, I do believe that if the Jews have the right to Jersualem on the basis of religious belief, then so do Christians and Muslims

The Jews have a right to Jerusalem because it’s the capital city of their nation. Do you really not understand this? Are you genuinely so dumb that this point goes completely over your head? Or are you a demented, ignorant antisemite?

Nearly O -

I understand you have a habit of substituting assertion for argument.

Modernity -

Fortunately London isn’t claimed as a key religious centre of competing religions - although they did find a Temple of Mithras on an archaeological dig I believe. But then Mithrasists are few on the ground these days.

field,

again, because you CLAIM something does not necessary make it yours

the problem is, you have an opinion and you seem to think that Israelis want to hear it, they don’t.

Brits wouldn’t listen to Israelis over the fate of the Falklands Isle or what to do in Northern Ireland?

so why do you think that Israelis should listen to the sage advice of Brits, who’s country when it controlled Palestine, barred entry to 10,000s of refugees from Nazi terror in WW2?

look up the MacDonald white paper and how Britain forced often Jewish refugees into concentration camps in Cyrus and around the globe rather than let them into Palestine

all in all, under such circumstances I’d say that Israelis and Jews are fairly polite to you

“Fortunately London isn’t claimed as a key religious centre of competing religions - although they did find a Temple of Mithras on an archaeological dig I believe. But then Mithrasists are few on the ground these days.” (field)

I still don’t understand why the fact that Jerusalem is mentioned in your Bible means that it has to be internationalized and you can claim sovereignty over it. Does this mean that Israel can claim sovereignty over Armenia’s mount Ararat?

Field, are you really so utterly dumb that you can’t understand the difference between your lunatic rants and rational argument? I didn’t ‘assert’ anything. I showed that your antisemitism is based on ignorance: you don’t even know that the Jews are a nation. I also showed that your religious claim to political rights over Jerusalem is baseless.
Now, which part of that are you too stupid to understand?

Modernity -

I’d say the mass of ordinary Israelis are far closer to my position than you think, up to and including the fact that something has to be done about Jerusalem which will involve giving up part at least of Jerusalem. My own view is that Israel will be much safer if part of the solution to the Jerusalem issue is an international one.

I think the Israelis are ready for a real settlement having given up on the dangerous and flawed Greater Israel project. It is the Arabs, or more specifically the Muslim Arabs who have the catching up to do.

As for Northern Ireland, if you are thinking that the Americans and Europeans didn’t advise us what to do in Northern Ireland or that we paid them no heed, then you are a complete fantasist.

Nearly O -

In what sense is a Jew in New York and a Jew in Tehran part of the same nation. It’s a complete fantasy again but even if it were true then it raises many difficult questions over political loyalties. A common
religion does not define nationhood. I would say that nationality (a pretty fluid concept that dates really from the 1700s) has more to do with language, culture, co-locality.

To say “next year in Jerusalem” and not go is no more meaningful than a supporter of a struggling football club saying “I think we really can win the cup this year” when everyone knows it is not going to happen.

Only Jews who take up residence in Israel and learn Modern Hebrew can be said to be part of a nation with a specifically Jewish character.
Everyone else is just playing at it.

field:
Not only you are historically incorrect.
You are nobody to tell the Jews of New York or Teheran how they feel. And because we care for the Jews of Teheran, we will do the impossible to rescue them from that hell, just like we did with the Jews of the Soviet Union. Even though most of them were not Jews in the religious sense.
You just don’t get it. But we don’t rely on you.
We rely on ourselves.
And fuck your fear of Jews’ double loyalties. I piss on it.
Regards.
Fabian from Israel and Argentina.

Now urination has become a substitute for cogitation.

That is what you deserve, field, an ignorant person who regurgitates classic antisemitic fears.
American catholics are not to fear of double loyalties, in spite that they have a person who they regard as their spiritual chief and who dwells in political matters, the Pope. No, just Jews.
Nor American Armenians, Irish, Italians, Germans, etc. Just Jews.
You would do well in reading about the Dreyfuss Affair, because you repeat the same antisemitic utterances than the French Catholic Far-Right.
Of course, you are “concerned” about double loyalties.
Piss and only piss for you.

My understanding is that Jerusalem is considered holy by Christianity and Islam as well as by Judaism. So what gives with the declaration by various individuals that it’s more important to them as Jews than it is to any one of another faith?

Margaret:

Many cities are important for many people who don’t live there, and not only because of religion (why privilege religion and not music, or painting, or literature or any other form of art?). That doesn’t give any of them sovereignty rights over those cities.
The Jews, as a people, are sovereign over the city of Jerusalem and that is enough. If you don’t like it, too bad. Unless you are Israeli (or Palestinian living in the territories) you don’t have any legitimate claim to Jerusalem as a whole.
However, many churches bought land in Jerusalem during the XVIII and especially the XIX century. Their titles to those lands are respected, just as you respect the title to the land of a synagogue in London.
Israel, moreover, warrants freedom of religion and visit to Jerusalem.
So what else do you want? Ownership? Because you go to Mass, like field?
You own the heavenly Jerusalem, and that should be enough for you.

Now fabrication has become a substitute for argumentation.

For the nth time I don’t go to Mass. But if I did it would neither detract from or add to the strength of my arguments.

It was Nearly O, not me, who made the claim (much loved by anti-semites) that all Jews are perforce part of a single nation, wherever they live. I simply don’t believe that. But even if I did believe it, it in no way means that Israel is entitled to occupy the whole of Jersualem, and I don’t think there are many states in the world that recognise the annexation of East Jerusalem.

That said, double loyalty clearly can be problematic and it isn’t anti-semitic to say so. That was clearly the position in the late 40s for British Jews in the UK when British soldiers were fighting Jewish independence fighters (some of whom came from Britain). It was clearly the case when Japanese American citizens were rounded up and incarcerated during the war. It is clearly a problem in the UK today with respect to Muslims with joint British and Pakistani citizenship.

To pretend such issues don’t exist is to pretend that the world is not as it is.

No, field. You simply don’t understand.

You could not ask Jews in the 40s to be loyal to the UK when ther brothers were being denied safe refuge in Palestine. And you should not expect loyalty if Jews are again mistreated by that government. To do otherwise is to ask for the impossible. You want to behave immorally with the Jews, but they need to respect your laws or “double loyalty is a problem”?
And when you don’t have any problem with the Jews, double loyalty continues to be for you a problem? That is exactly what antisemitism is. To expect a higher standard from the Jews you would not ask of any other people. Jews have never been your enemy. Britain made itself for a while an enemy of the Jews.
For the last time, it is not for you (nor for N.O.) to tell the Jews if they are a people or not. Jews feel the way they feel, and they won’t be constrained by people full of fear like you.

“But even if I did believe it, it in no way means that Israel is entitled to occupy the whole of Jersualem”

This was not your argument. You argument is that Jerusalem must be internationalized because it is holy for three religions. I care not a jot for what you consider holy. I won’t desecrate what you believe in, but it does not give you any political right over the land. Otherwise, I should expect that you internationalize Los Angeles and Liverpool, because for me The Doors and The Beatles are holy. Open your ears! Your argument is crap.

Since you know your argument is crap you want to argue through fear. If Jews don’t do as I say, then they are not loyal. You are such a democratic person, field. Evidently, if Jews don’t do what field says, since field represents True Englishmen, Jews are being disloyal with the UK. Disgustingly classic.

Should I present myself also so you can slap me inside the church in Easter as before?

“It was Nearly O, not me, who made the claim (much loved by anti-semites) that all Jews are perforce part of a single nation, wherever they live.”

No, what is “loved” by the antisemites is not that we are a single nation, but that we are a different race, that we have a single interest and that it involves ruling the world.

What is loved by antisemites who think that they are democrats (like you) is to establish tests of loyalty for Jews, the stricter the better.

I just would like to interject that I do not believe that Field represents the type of a “true Englishman”, although it must be noted that his lack of thought, intellect and common sense, inability to emphasise or understand another’s position and his general idiocy is perhaps sadly not untypical of many in England in these, and other, times.

[I must also clarify, as field has stated on a previous occasion that he thinks that I am Fabian from Israel, that in fact I am not, but I am every bit as frustrated at field's idiocy and malevolance and ignorance as is he]

I think any fair minded observer will see that you haven’t answered Margaret’s point. Jerusalem was occupied for getting on for a 1000 years by Christian powers since the old Jewish state was extinguished and had a majority Christian population for much of that time.

Your claim to Jerusalem is based entirely on assertion. Many Muslims assert on the basis of Koranic authority that Islam has a right to conquer Al Rum (Rome).

Are you saying that all religious claims to territory have to be respected, or only the claims that relate to the religion you personally follow?

Let me be clear by the way: my view is that Israel does have a claim to part of Jerusalem to the extent that the proposal for internationalisation of Jerusalem put forward by the United Nations was never implemented. I think to the extent that they took territory by conquest, they have at least a claim they can argue.

However, I am not looking at this from that point of view. I’m asking what are the necessary conditions for a just peace. I think a solution to the problem of Jerusalem is certainly a necessary condition and I think internationalisation would help, not hinder, such a solution.

“Jews feel the way they feel”. Of course, and the vast majority feel quite sensibly that it would be crazy for them to decamp to Israel and put themselves in the firing line. A nation? I don’t think so. No - people who define themselves as part of a very broad religio-cultural tradition ranging from extreme bible-literalists to straightforward atheists.

As for double loyalties I think you’ve got a problem if you go abroad to start shooting at your fellow citizens as some UK Muslims do now and as some UK Jews did in the 1940s.

It is interesting to see the degree to which, after so many years, Fields and others of her ilk remain so staunchly opposed to the ideas that diasporas can exist…

Serge -

What are you on about? Diasporas can exist. Doesn’t mean they are going to re-coalesce or that they have a great deal to do with each other. Do you really think perhaps 100 million people of African descent in the Americas are going to return to the homeland of their ancestors or that Chinese people living in Singapore, London, San Francisco and Sydney are suddenly going to up sticks and return to the Yangtze valley?

Actually of all the diasporas, probably the Chinese are the most homogenous - far more so than the Jews.

Field:

1. The majority of Israelis do NOT agree to give up east Jerusalem.
2. Most Jews DO consider themselves part of a Jeiwsh nationality or ethnicity.

If you don’t like it, tough sh-t.

Philo-Semite -

1. I think that has yet to be tested. Obviously not as an opening bargaining position, but as part of a genuine comprehensive settlement, then I think yes. The fact that Israeli leaders have given indications they are prepared to consider this as part of settlement negotiations points the way I think. My view - though clearly some feel I’m not entitled to a view - is that a tripartite solution, involving an Israeli section, a Palestinian section and an international section would be the best way forward.

2. What does most mean? 55% or 99%? I think, as I have already said,
that “nation” is a very fluid concept in any case and scarcely had much meaning until the 1700s. I don’t doubt that most Jews identify themselves as part of the Jewish people, perhaps. But for me “people” means the broad religio-cultural tradition. Nation implies a political organisation.

I figure, my Field, or should I say, mein kampf, is a jew-baiter dressed in anti-zionist clothing. He has all the answers and but none of the knowledge. I think the judenrein forum is still accepting subscribers.