Accept Israel as the Jewish State?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Accept Israel as the Jewish State?

Daniel Pipes

Jerusalem Post

November 29, 2007

I was sent this article in an email, but the version I received was the one posted on the Jerusalem Post's site (see here). I linked to the version on Pipes's website because the picture is different and it is far richer link-wise.

I find myself in agreement with Pipes about the need for insisting on Israel being recognized as a Jewish state. As he said:

Raising this topic has the virtue of finally focusing attention on what is the central topic in the Arab-Israeli conflict – Zionism, the Jewish nationalist movement, a topic that typically gets ignored in the hubbub of negotiations.

So long as Zionism is limited to making and fortifying a Jewish nation, I have no beef with it. There are Islamic nations so why not a Jewish nation?

Why on earth Pipes made a sarcastic snipe at Olmert in this context, I do not know:

... a weak Israeli prime minister, "Ehud ("Peace is achieved through concessions") Olmert"...

Apparently Olmert is not only NOT willing to accept recognition of a non-Jewish Israel, he is FAR STRONGER on this point than even the war-hawks before him. Here are Pipes's own words:

Breaking with his predecessors, Olmert has boldly demanded that his Palestinian bargaining partners accept Israel's permanent existence as a Jewish state...

I don't want to go into the standard speculations as to why the Palestinians are refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation, but I do agree that this is the crux of the matter. It is the goal that needs to be achieved if peace is ever to come to that region. If pressure and diplomacy can result in Israel's formal recognition by Islamic states as a Jewish state (and especially by the emerging Palestine), the back of Nazism left over from WWII will be broken.

I was really sad to see the article end thus:

Arab recognition of Israel's Jewish nature must have top diplomatic priority. Until the Palestinians formally accept Zionism, then follow up by ceasing all their various strategies to eliminate Israel, negotiations should be halted and not restarted. Until then, there is nothing to talk about.

Pipes should know that reality exists and that will not happen from one minute to the next. It is going to be an ugly long haul, as it already has been. The real issue is Islamic Nazism and that is about as ugly as it gets. Nazis die hard.

I fully agree that "Arab recognition of Israel's Jewish nature must have top diplomatic priority." This is currently in a form where it can be held with "top diplomatic priority" by the US and other major non-Islamic countries, so it should be kept as a pressure point until it breaks through. Thus I do not agree with Pipes that "negotiations should be halted and not restarted" unless it miraculously happens with the snap of fingers. There is only one way to do this right and that is to keep trying until it is done. Then a follow-through should be made by stamping out the remnants of Islamic Nazism, pocket by pocket, which should have been done over half a century ago as Nazism was in Europe. I don't see any other way.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It is Nazism that needs to be smashed. Then you can play diplomat all you want. Force rules everywhere. It is guided by culture and philosophy but it's the horse all ride. Government is force. If we're going to have government we are going to have force. If not ours then someone else's imposed on us. Way of the world. Way of everything.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

So long as Zionism is limited to making and fortifying a Jewish nation, I have no beef with it. There are Islamic nations so why not a Jewish nation?

A highly discriminatory nation based on a religion is a good idea? How does that work?

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Who said it was a good idea? I said I had no beef with it. However, it so happens that I think for Jews it is a great idea.

Human beings have already proven antisemitic malice. There have been way too many organized attempts to kill off Jews. So a safe haven for migration in the event of genocidal attempts against Jews in other countries makes oodles of sense to me. (Maybe even for some organized payback.)

Michael

[Greybird]

Brad Linaweaver, in his alternate-universe novel Moon of Ice, had the Nazis fighting World War II to a stalemate with the U.S., and the Jews building a massive space station in geosynchronous orbit, at the longitude of Jerusalem. This was done to avoid the endless wars over a speck of dirt. And, as a secondary motive, for greater safety, where some felt endangered.

As well as, more to the point here, its being private property, neither benefiting from nor practicing coercion, as with the State of Israel in our own universe.

Why should any government with power, or representation, based on a religious test (as the U.S. Constitution prohibits), be endorsed by any Objectivist? Power relations tend to close off consideration of alternatives.

[studiodekadent]

I find it difficult to see how a state can be Jewish. People can be Jewish, their religion can be Jewish, etc, but how can a state be Jewish?

A state can be made up of Jewish people, but does this mean that the state itself is Jewish?

The same applies of course to "Islamic States."

Also, why is a "Jewish State" needed to protect the individual rights of Jewish people? Michael certainly raises an important point; that anti-semitism has in the past been very widespread, and even today many parts of the world have antisemitic attitudes, but does this mean that the only way to keep Jewish people safe from antisemitic violence is a Jewish state?

[mvir9]

I find it difficult to see how a state can be Jewish. People can be Jewish, their religion can be Jewish, etc, but how can a state be Jewish?

A state can be made up of Jewish people, but does this mean that the state itself is Jewish?

The same applies of course to "Islamic States."

Also, why is a "Jewish State" needed to protect the individual rights of Jewish people? Michael certainly raises an important point; that anti-semitism has in the past been very widespread, and even today many parts of the world have antisemitic attitudes, but does this mean that the only way to keep Jewish people safe from antisemitic violence is a Jewish state?

Excellent questions, studiodekadent.

I agree wholeheartedly. The reason that Islamic states are labeled as such is that they actually enforce religious rule (Shar'iah). Therefore, religion (not civil order) has primacy. Of course, for the most part, the violence and civil abuses we see in the Islamic states are a direct result of religion as law.

If it is not good to have religious laws dictate civil order, then how can it be okay for the Jewish religion to dictate civil order? I can't see why the separation of church and state should be a relative issue.

[BaalChatzaf]

I agree wholeheartedly. The reason that Islamic states are labeled as such is that they actually enforce religious rule (Shar'iah). Therefore, religion (not civil order) has primacy. Of course, for the most part, the violence and civil abuses we see in the Islamic states are a direct result of religion as law.

If it is not good to have religious laws dictate civil order, then how can it be okay for the Jewish religion to dictate civil order? I can't see why the separation of church and state should be a relative issue.

If a thousand Jews found an uncharted, but habitable island and set up a Jewish state on it, would you object? The found the place, they collectively own the place, so they can, as a body politic, set up any kind of state they wish. If they can do it on an island, why not on the region between the brook of Egypt (a wadi in the Sinai) and the Jordan River?

In Atlas Shrugged, Midas Milligan and his friends set up an Objectivist mini-state in the middle of Colorado. Is there a problem with that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[mvir9]

I agree wholeheartedly. The reason that Islamic states are labeled as such is that they actually enforce religious rule (Shar'iah). Therefore, religion (not civil order) has primacy. Of course, for the most part, the violence and civil abuses we see in the Islamic states are a direct result of religion as law.

If it is not good to have religious laws dictate civil order, then how can it be okay for the Jewish religion to dictate civil order? I can't see why the separation of church and state should be a relative issue.

If a thousand Jews found an uncharted, but habitable island and set up a Jewish state on it, would you object? The found the place, they collectively own the place, so they can, as a body politic, set up any kind of state they wish. If they can do it on an island, why not on the region between the brook of Egypt (a wadi in the Sinai) and the Jordan River?

In Atlas Shrugged, Midas Milligan and his friends set up an Objectivist mini-state in the middle of Colorado. Is there a problem with that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm not saying that they can't do it . . . rather, I am objecting to the idea that we should actively support the idea of ANY state (or island) that embraces a religious-based government.

Regarding Midas in Shrugged: Galt's Gulch wasn't based on religion.

[BaalChatzaf]

I'm not saying that they can't do it . . . rather, I am objecting to the idea that we should actively support the idea of ANY state (or island) that embraces a religious-based government.

Regarding Midas in Shrugged: Galt's Gulch wasn't based on religion.

It was based on a philosophical commitment that was perilously close to a religion. In the The Real World, some of the Objectivist movement has an uncomfortable resemblance to a cult complete with purges excommunication and assertions of anethma. For example; David Kelley. The onlything missing was Bell, Book and Candle. Anytime people commit to the Abstract they are practicing a kind of religion. In the case of Galt's Gulch it was pagan. I am sure that if any second generation Galt Gulcher expressed an altruistic sentiment he would be shown the door and the rays screen would be closed behind him. Think of Adam's expulsion from Eden.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 2, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[mvir9]

I'm not saying that they can't do it . . . rather, I am objecting to the idea that we should actively support the idea of ANY state (or island) that embraces a religious-based government.

Regarding Midas in Shrugged: Galt's Gulch wasn't based on religion.

It was based on a philosophical commitment that was perilously close to a religion. In the The Real World, some of the Objectivist movement has an uncomfortable resemblance to a cult complete with purges excommunication and assertions of anethma. For example; David Kelley. The onlything missing was Bell, Book and Candle. Anytime people commit to the Abstract they are practicing a kind of religion. In the case of Galt's Gulch it was pagan. I am sure that if any second generation Galt Gulcher expressed an altruistic sentiment he would be shown the door and the rays screen would be closed behind him. Think of Adam's expulsion from Eden.

Ba'al Chatzaf

"Perilously close to a religion" doesn't constitute a religion.

I disagree that ANY commitment to the Abstract is practicing a kind of religion. This commitment, when mediated by reason and individuality, always leaves room for a change in commitment (even if it is only a matter of degrees). When I know better, I do better.

If reason and individuality are not considered in a commitment to the Abstract, then blind faith becomes the crux of one's commitment. Blind faith is the hallmark of religious thinking . . . regardless of the subject (for instance, scientists used to religiously believe that the earth was flat even when someone disproved their theory).

Yes, some of the Objectivists treat Objectivism as a religion. Is it right? No (on the contrary, it is hypocritical to what they profess). Do I actively support Objectivism as a philosophically-based religion? Nope!

I apply the same set of principles to Objectivism that I do to everything else.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Aw, come on, Bob. Rand parted the sea, anointed a king, trekked through the wilderness to build a temple in praise of supernatural ghosts that decreed holier-than-thou territorial claim to Babylon's mineral deposits?

[BaalChatzaf]

Aw, come on, Bob. Rand parted the sea, anointed a king, trekked through the wilderness to build a temple in praise of supernatural ghosts that decreed holier-than-thou territorial claim to Babylon's mineral deposits?

You allude to a form of Judaism that has not been practiced for over 2000 years. Judaism (in its orthodox form) is no longer Bible based. It is based on Rabbinic opinion, as set down in the Babylonian Talmud. This has been regarded as complete since the Rashi (R. Schlomo Itzak) died in France circa 1100 c.e.

All current Rabbinic opinion is extension and emendation of the text as so summarize by R. Caro circa 1500 c.e. (about the time that Jews were expelled from Spain). What R. Caro did was to organize the Babylonia Talmud into a subject and keyword type database with cross references. R. Caro even had a non-computerized version of hyper keys. As we say in Hebrew : Ayn hadoashot tachat ha'shemesh. There is nothing new under the sun.

Add to that the fact that the majority of Jews are not orthodox.

Jews no longer rely on miracles. They live by their wits and a world not kindly disposed toward them.

The so-called Jewish State (Judenstadt) was an entity imagined by Theodore Hertzel who witnessed the anti-semitism in France during the Dreyfus Affair and came to the conclusion that Jews had no future in Europe. They would either be Christianized or killed. He was right on the money (see the holocaust). The only future (as Hertzel saw it) was for Jews to found their own country. Hertzel was wrong in his estimation. It turned out that the U.S. was the best thing that ever happened to the Jews. Hertzel, who lived at the end of the 19th century and before the Great War, could not have known this.

Right now I am living in a land of promise, even if it is not the Promised Land.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

I agree wholeheartedly. The reason that Islamic states are labeled as such is that they actually enforce religious rule (Shar'iah). Therefore, religion (not civil order) has primacy. Of course, for the most part, the violence and civil abuses we see in the Islamic states are a direct result of religion as law.

If it is not good to have religious laws dictate civil order, then how can it be okay for the Jewish religion to dictate civil order? I can't see why the separation of church and state should be a relative issue.

If a thousand Jews found an uncharted, but habitable island and set up a Jewish state on it, would you object? The found the place, they collectively own the place, so they can, as a body politic, set up any kind of state they wish. If they can do it on an island, why not on the region between the brook of Egypt (a wadi in the Sinai) and the Jordan River?

In Atlas Shrugged, Midas Milligan and his friends set up an Objectivist mini-state in the middle of Colorado. Is there a problem with that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The problem is that the answer to anti-semitism seems to be a state where official anti-everything-other-than-judaism is endorsed. How about a state where every form of religious or racial discrimination it's highly illegal and aggressively punished. Isn't that the better solution?

"If a thousand Jews found an uncharted, but habitable island and set up a Jewish state on it, would you object? "

This is objectionable because it commits precisely the same offence as it purports to combat.

Bob

[BaalChatzaf]

This is objectionable because it commits precisely the same offence as it purports to combat.

Bob

No it isn't. The purpose of a Jewish state is to protect Jews from aggression. That is not offensive. That is defensive. It is a place where Jews could (in theory) come to live in safety. Unfortunately for the Israelis the place they chose (which is nearly empty at the time the Jewish agency purchased land from the Ottoman Turks) is surrounded by hostile parties. The first place that Theodore Hertzel considered was Uganda, in the middle of Africa. Had Jews set up shop there, they would be a lot safer than they are now. But that is a practical consideration. The principle of setting up a safe haven for an oft-persecuted people is perfectly sound.

No nation is bound to be egalitarian or open to immigration. The only requirement on it is that it respect the rights of its citizens and that it not make war on its peaceful neighbors.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

This is objectionable because it commits precisely the same offence as it purports to combat.

Bob

No it isn't. The purpose of a Jewish state is to protect Jews from aggression. That is not offensive. That is defensive.

That is a simple, bold-faced rationalization of racism.

Edit: No nation is required to have open immigration - fine, but to be so highly discriminatory based on race and/or religion, not on merit, is indeed the exact 'offensive' behaviour that the state apparently exists to protect against.

Bob

Edited December 3, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[BaalChatzaf]

Edit: No nation is required to have open immigration - fine, but to be so highly discriminatory based on race and/or religion, not on merit, is indeed the exact 'offensive' behaviour that the state apparently exists to protect against.

Bob

One what two tablets of stone is this written? That is how -our- constitution is written. It is not a universal requirement.

It is possible for a non-Jew to live as a tolerated alien in a Jewish state. Neither his property nor his life will be in danger. He will not be able to hold office or vote, but he will be safe. In Israel, the franchise is actually extended to Druse and some Muslims, even though the State was founded as a safe haven for Jews (that sure did not work out!).

That is exactly how the Japanese handle non-Japanese persons. They are tolerated aliens. In order to be a citizen of Japan (the nation) one must have a certified Japanese racial background. The Japanese keep very careful records (pedigrees actually), of their ancestors to prove that they are true blue (or is it yellow) Japanese. Non Japanese persons are permitted to live and work in Japan as tolerated aliens.

If they do not like their unequal status they could arrange not be there in the first place or they could leave.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 3, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Edit: No nation is required to have open immigration - fine, but to be so highly discriminatory based on race and/or religion, not on merit, is indeed the exact 'offensive' behaviour that the state apparently exists to protect against.

Bob

One what two tablets of stone is this written? That is how -our- constitution is written. It is not a universal requirement.

It is only a requirement if -you- want to be a nation worthy of respect and peace. If -you- deliberately choose to be unjust and blatantly racist, so be it, at least be prepared for, lets just say, disapproval for it is deserved.

It is possible for a non-Jew to live as a tolerated alien in a Jewish state. Neither his property nor his life will be in danger. He will not be able to hold office or vote, but he will be safe. In Israel, the franchise is actually extended to Druse and some Muslims, even though the State was founded as a safe haven for Jews (that sure did not work out!).

That is exactly how the Japanese handle non-Japanese persons. They are tolerated aliens. In order to be a citizen of Japan (the nation) one must have a certified Japanese racial background. The Japanese keep very careful records (pedigrees actually), of their ancestors to prove that they are true blue (or is it yellow) Japanese. Non Japanese persons are permitted to live and work in Japan as tolerated aliens.

If they do not like their unequal status they could arrange not be there in the first place or they could leave.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I agree, the Japanese (as a state) are horribly racist as well. This makes it OK? Makes -you- what? Not the worst? Nice...

"If they do not like their unequal status they could arrange not be there in the first place or they could leave. "

As could every Jew in any other place. Again, this makes it OK? Justified?

"He will not be able to hold office or vote, but he will be safe."

That's just peachy. Very nice. You wouldn't mind then if, say, the USA maybe had the same policy for non-wasps? After all the country was founded by those seeking to escape religious persecution no?

Bob

Edited December 3, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[BaalChatzaf]

I agree, the Japanese (as a state) are horribly racist as well. This makes it OK? Makes -you- what? Not the worst? Nice...

"If they do not like their unequal status they could arrange not be there in the first place or they could leave. "

As could every Jew in any other place. Again, this makes it OK? Justified?

Not in a republic that claims to be secular. In such a republic there must be no religious discrimination at all. It turns out that the U.S. is a secular, non sectarian republic by design. Also, in this republic all the rights of citizenship come by birth or naturalization, not by religious affiliation. In Japan, Japan is for the Japanese. That is how they want it.

"He will not be able to hold office or vote, but he will be safe."

That's just peachy. Very nice. You wouldn't mind then if, say, the USA maybe had the same policy for non-wasps? After all the country was founded by those seeking to escape religious persecution no?

Bob

I would mind. The U.S. was established as a non-sectarian republic from the git go. On the other hand the State of Israel was established as a safe haven for Jews. It also respects the rights of its citizens and tolerated aliens as well. In Israel, any energetic attempts to convert Jews to Christianity or any other religion is met with a quick order to leave the country. Such attempts are simply not tolerated in Israel. And why should they be?

The U.S. was established to be an independent republic, independent from England or any other European power. It was not established as a safe haven for those fleeing religious prosecution. Nowhere in our constitution does it say anything like that. You are confusing what the Puritan refugees from escaping from the Church of England did in the Massachusetts colony. That has nothing to do with the establishment of the Republic here in the U.S..

Your problem is you expect -every- republic to be set up like the U.S.. That is simply not the case. Japan is not. Israel is not, and surely none of the Muslim states are so set up.

I happen to prefer the non-sectarian nature of the U.S. which is why I have no plans to emigrate to Israel.

Why are you annoyed at the idea of Jews having a safe haven? Israel did not turn out to be as safe as intended, but that is because its Muslim neighbors mean it no good. In principle, there is nothing whatever wrong with a Jewish State which also respects human rights within its borders. As things stand in Israel, the majority of the Jewish population is not all that observant by orthodox standards. On warm days, the beaches are crowded with sunbathers and swimmers on the Sabbath. As I said, if you don't like the idea of a religiously established state, do not live in one. No one is forcing you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Why are you annoyed at the idea of Jews having a safe haven? Israel did not turn out to be as safe as intended, but that is because its Muslim neighbors mean it no good. In principle, there is nothing whatever wrong with a Jewish State which also respects human rights within its borders. As things stand in Israel, the majority of the Jewish population is not all that observant by orthodox standards. On warm days, the beaches are crowded with sunbathers and swimmers on the Sabbath. As I said, if you don't like the idea of a religiously established state, do not live in one. No one is forcing you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I do not expect every republic to be set up like the US. It's not matter of expectation, it's a matter of basic rational principle. The Jewish state is based on ethno-religious tribalism. What I'm saying is that as a state it is therefore fundamentally irrational and ill-conceived. It's rife with the exact discrimination it was intended to protect its citizens against. Does it have a right to exist? Not the point, but sure it does if it has enough guns. Will it exist peacefully? Not a chance.

"In principle, there is nothing whatever wrong with a Jewish State which also respects human rights within its borders."

As long as human rights don't actually involve the right to 'vote' or anything so absurd. How can you say the above when you damn well know that disrespecting rights is the only way Israel can exist as designed?

I think it's pretty clear that your tribalism trumps your rationality. At least have the stones to admit it.

Bob

Edited December 4, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

The only way Israel can exist is as a de facto if not de jure Jewish state. It will probably be destroyed by demographics if not one big bomb eventually. The basic problem is that the Palestinians were not absorbed by surrounding Arab states which use them as the weapon of choice against Israel. All the Middle East is is a conglomeration of tribes and sub-tribes fighting for each other's space. To make a big deal out of the idea that Israel should be a secular state is to make no kind of deal that it's continually fighting for its life against myraid enemies. Israel should be this, Israel should be that--these are nice abstract positions and considerations for those of us who don't live in Israel. How about this: leave Israel alone to take care of itself. Take away the U.S. crutch. Sink or swim. Of course, that means Israel might nuke Iran or conquer Jordan and give it to the Palestinians, etc., etc. Kind of hard for the U.S. to be non-interventionist since the U.S. for better or worse is all about control in its foreign policy. This control is partly an illusion becoming more and more of an illusion as time goes on, especially with the gross squandering of resources in Iraq.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

The only way Israel can exist is as a de facto if not de jure Jewish state. It will probably be destroyed by demographics if not one big bomb eventually. ...

--Brant

Well, at least it will not be a big bomb wielded/hurled by Iran, if the latest "corrections" of "intelligence failure" are accurate.

REB

[Martin Radwin]

As a general rule, intelligence is almost always inaccurate. Even when it is accurate, it is usually ignored if it conflicts with a governmental agenda. The Iraq war is a perfect example of this; the intelligence was distorted and cherry picked in order to justify a decision to launch a war that the Bush administration had already made.

Iran never threatened to wipe out Israel. This was based on a complete mistranslation of a statement made by Amadinajad, who does not control the Iranian military. Unless one believes that the Iranian rulers are suicidal, the idea that they would launch a major attack against Israel is ludicrous. Israel is well defended by an arsensal of several hundred nuclear warheads, enough to totally destroy Iran.

Martin

Edited December 5, 2007 by Martin Radwin

[Mike11]

Greetings Objectivists and non-Objectivists!

I know I promised I would not return but I needed to say a few (alot) of things about this thread.

1. Antisemitism is only one reason for the state of Israel and it is a secondary one. The Zionist critique of antisemitism places its cause as the fact that the Jews in Eastern Europe (where Zionism got rolling) were not a real people, they were like ghosts or vampires existing without identity or soil amongst those who had such. The only way the Jews would be spared antisemitism is if they became a people with a land of thier own ( link ). As a quick example look at the works of prominant Zionist Bar Borochov ( link ) . At a time when the eastern Jewish community was split largely in favour of communism he argued that there was no jewish working class that could rebel and a jewish state must be established first to create this class, followed by the Revolution. On another level many jewish poets and novelists in Russia during this period (1880-1920) stressed the "Wandering Jew" with no home of his own and thus no identity. Zionism existed to make the Jews like any other people, with a state and a soil; protection from antisemitism as a secondary goal.

I mention this because the Jews are a people, with a state, now like any other. The Zionist cause is finished now that the Jews are the majority within Israel and jewish langage and culture are dominant. Israel does still have laws however that hinder what nonjews can do, they can not settle in certain areas, jews are given a free tcket to immigrate while gentiles are not, marriages are still defined by religous identities (mixed marriages are discouraged, when they are possible at all) and other "Apartheid-Lite" ( link ) things like that which should be abolished but Israel is secure in its jewish identity, preserving that is largely, apart from the "Right of Return", a nonissue.

What I mean to say here is Zionism's main job is over. Mission accomplished. Time for postzionism ( link ).

That said the jews have a complicated past and encompass social movements and philosophies from all over. The Zionism I adressed was "Labour Zionism" ( link ), the originater and leader to the 1970's of Jewish nationalism, but there were 2 other big ones I want to mention that have similar and unfullfilled goals. Revisionist Zionism ( link ) ( link ) and for lack of a better word, Orthodox Zionism ( link ) ( link ) .

Revisionist Zionism takes its name from a rejection of the Brittish Mandate being split between Palestine and Transjordan. Mainstream Zionism agreed to settle in Palestine while the Revisionists wanted to colonise Transjordan aswell. This Revisionist Zionism was fascistic and capitalist as opposed to the more diplomatic and socialist mainstream. Stressing that Might makes Right the Revisionists were famous for thier violence (the Dier Yasin massacre was done by this wing), enshrining of fascistic ideals, and colonial attitudes. The divide between Revisionists and the mainstream became so severe that the Haganah (the Labour army and future IDF) once declared an open season to wipe out the Revisionist terror gangs wherever they were found.

Labour controlled the show untill the 70's when corruption and the Yom Kippur War brought down the goernment. This is when the Israeli policy in the teritories shifted from "Land for Peace" to colonisation and expropriation. The Revisionist dream of a Jewish "Eretz Israel" (the name for Israel as it was in David's time) became possible and a system of Jewish supremacy with a second class client arab population was established in the territories. This was allied to jewish religous groups noted for thier racism against nonjews, the belief that God gave the land to the jews, and teroristic actions. Baruch Goldstien famous for a mass killing of arab civilians was one such settler; his hometown has a monumant in his honour ( link) . For killing 29 and wounding 150 muslims in prayer the following is inscribed in a park to his honour, "To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel."

While the Israeli government dominated by Revisionists would often claim curfews, economic opresion and educational disruptions were needed to end Palestinian terror, they were in fact aswell the required machinery ofcolonial dominance. Annexation of East Jerusalem, tax breaks and military protection for colonials, water theft and disprpportionate distribution, restrictions on arab manufacturing, the reliance of the Israeli economy on cheap labour and a slave market and police protection ignoring jewish attacks on arabs were all part of this expansionist policy in the Revisionist and Orthodox war on the Palestinians.

The term "Antisemitism" is often applied to those who condemn Israel for these impulses and actions or support the palestinian struggle for statehood which is an incredible peice of rhetoric. Israel has brought on justified condemnation in the form of divestment, UN resolutions (often unfairly applied true) and general "Pariah state of the West" status on its own with little help from Nazis or Islamofascists, much as many a right wing Zionist would like to hide behind them.

That being said in part because of the Occupation, barbarism in the Arab world and general violence in the region Israel has a right to maintain a strong military capable of defending the state from military aggression. Further, to a point, "Jewish Identity" laws can be considered defencive in the context of the arab "Right of Return" link ) which would immediatly lead to a "One state solution" which, at least in Palestine's current form, would be the end of liberal democracy and human rights in the Levant for decades to come. Though racial identity is a bad thing to start protecting yourself with in the case of this war by other means its a legitimate tool.

2.

Unfortunately for the Israelis the place they chose (which is nearly empty at the time the Jewish agency purchased land from the Ottoman Turks)

Myth.

"Palestine was not an empty land when Zionist immigration began. The lowest estimates claim there were about 410,000 Arab Muslims and Christians in Palestine in 1893. A Zionist estimate claimed there were over 600,000 Arabs in Palestine. in the 1890s. At this time, the number of Jewish immigrants to Palestine was still negligible by all accounts. It is unlikely that Palestinian immigration prior to this period was due to Zionist development. Though uncertainty exists concerning the precise numbers of Arabs living in the areas that later became Israel, it is very unlikely that the claims of Joan Peters that there were less than 100,000 Arabs living there are valid." ( link ).

They came to a land whose residents outnumbered them, even as late as 1922, by 7 to 1, after 2 decades of jewish immigration. In 1900 jews were outnumbeed 500 to 25 thousand.

3. About the Jews going to America or America being the solution to the Jewish question that ought to have been pursued. Several million eastern jews did go to America, the minority going to Palestine, however when the major influx of jews arrived in Palestine and pushed the issue of Israel through the UN they did so at a time when some countries (like my hometown of Canada) had a complete wall against jewish immigration and others discouraged jews from immigrating. When combined with American and Brittish Christian Zionism (which predates and supported at all times jewish zionism) combining with Zionist diomacy the only place those Holocaust survivers were going was Palestine. By the end of WW2 jews hd only one shelter and it wasn't going to be America.

Keep in mind though it is not out of the question for Israel to become a liberal secular state in the future.

Sorry about all the typos, and you can find info on the Occupation by googling it, this was written between 2 and 4 am

Edited December 12, 2007 by Mike11

[BaalChatzaf]

3. About the Jews going to America or America being the solution to the Jewish question that ought to have been pursued. Several million eastern jews did go to America, the minority going to Palestine, however when the major influx of jews arrived in Palestine and pushed the issue of Israel through the UN they did so at a time when some countries (like my hometown of Canada) had a complete wall against jewish immigration and others discouraged jews from immigrating. When combined with American and Brittish Christian Zionism (which predates and supported at all times jewish zionism) combining with Zionist diomacy the only place those Holocaust survivers were going was Palestine. By the end of WW2 jews hd only one shelter and it wasn't going to be America.

Keep in mind though it is not out of the question for Israel to become a liberal secular state in the future.

Sorry about all the typos, and you can find info on the Occupation by googling it, this was written between 2 and 4 am

Israel is constituted (legally) as a secular state. The laws of Israel are those formulated in the Knesset, not gleaned from the Talmud. Israel is not a Jewish Shariah State. However, politically, orthodox Jews have a disproportionate influence there. In fact the State was founded mostly by eastern European socialist radicals. Hertzel's burgoise followers were in the numerical minority when the actual founding of the State happened. The majority of Israelis are not all that observant. During the summer, the beaches are mobbed on Shabbat.

As long as -The Protocols of Zion- is the number one non-Arabic work translated into Arabic in the Islamic world, the fear of antisemitism is justified. The Muslims are out to get the Jews, not just Israeli Jews. Listen to their agitprop. Read the Q'ran. Listen to what the Imams and Mullahs say when the froth starts flying out of their mouths. In froth there is truth. Read Sayid Q'tab the man who wrote the -Mein Kampf- of Islam --- -In the Shade of the Q'ran-. In point of fact, the anti-Zionist stance of some of the Islamics and pro-Islamics is a feeble smokescreen for their antisemitism. It is very easy to accept a dislike for another -nation-. To look respectable I will tell you I dislike France. In my heart it is the French I detest ( not that I would ever do any harm to those cheese eating surrender monkeys, mind you -- I surely would not).

Ba'al Chatzaf