How Jewish is Israel?

[MGB8]

Jorge,

I think you may take some the things Steve wrote too literaly.

For example, being a "sovereign nation" he likely meant a "singular nation in control of its own destiny" (that no one else would have the right to rule, aka the Egyptians.) How about "a nation on the them(our)selves?" As you say, "we were strangers in other lands."

As for seriously or not seriously believing in the claim of religion to keep the nation whole (and then to return to Israel)...

First, Jews certainly did pray for "next year in Jerusalem," and likely prayed to no longer be strangers in foreign lands... so Steve's point there is about people, and not G-d.

As for claiming knowledge of G-d's design, certainly there are vague prophesies that say the Jews shall return - to say you know when is a bit of a stretch, but, on the other hand, you have prophesy, the prophesy looks like it may have been fullfilled... we're not talking a massive logical leap here.

As to the holiness of places - there are places in Israel where Jews of faith believe that G-d spoke with man, and or that he ASSIGNED holiness to. There are also burial places, etc, that have their own holiness to them.

If you have faith in these things, and have faith that G-d did "choose" the people of Israel and grant them this land, then, again, it is no stretch to believe that the land in Israel is "more holy" - that maybe the connection to G-d for Jews is a little better there.

[SteveK]

Jorge,---


Your posts tell me nothing more than of one who got washed in with the tide, and can just as easily get washed out.

You list your location as Israel, but have you really dropped anchor here?

If so, you have got a whole lot of mental baggage to unpack.

[Cato]

Jorge,---


Your posts tell me nothing more than of one who got washed in with the tide, and can just as easily get washed out.

You list your location as Israel, but have you really dropped anchor here?

If so, you have got a whole lot of mental baggage to unpack.

I wonder what a lost pig is doing in the Ultra-Orthadox part of Haifa.

[SteveK]

I wonder what a lost pig is doing in the Ultra-Orthadox part of Haifa.

It's spelled: Orthodox and not Orthadox, you incompetent joke of an ingnorant atheist school teacher in Greece.

It's obvious that its not a simple mistake. You try to spell foolnetically.

You better polish up your English. The world doesn't speak Hebrew or Greek.

You'll need to be careful in what you say when you tell CNN how you took the land of Israel with the sword and how you hold it with a sword without a God in heaven to help you.

You do understand the English for the charges that you and your filthy Israeli atheist brazen dogs have brought on the Israeli Nation in being the O-C-C-U-P-I-E-R-S of Arab Land, the M-U-R-D-E-R-E-R-S who have inherited, and the W-A-R C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S ???

How are you going to smart mouth your way out of those international charges that you have brought on the Israeli Nation with your UNJEWISH Homeland in your broken ignorant English?

[Jorge]

Continued from my Post # 120:

I’d venture to say that the main dividing line in Israeli public opinion is based on whether or not a negotiated agreement on the basis of two adjoining States for two nations is the preferred strategy. Settlement activities play of course a big role in this dilemma but the issue is wider than “colonization”.

In the Israeli side two main camps lead, in my view, the opposition to a negotiated agreement: one is the camp usually called Religious Zionism and the other is what I call, for lack of a better name, ultra-nationalist camp (not just “nationalist” because one way or another we are all nationalists).

These two camps are, I think, aptly represented in this discussion by SteveK and MGB8. Quite a number of Forum members seem to share those views but I’m singling out those two because their contributions are in this Thread. Although their position stems from widely different worldviews their geo-political goal is the same: One state from the sea to the Jordan under Israeli rule.

The position of SteveK is quite clear and unambiguous: “God gave us the whole of Eretz Israel”, in settling it far and wide we are following His instructions and, by so doing we are bringing closer the advent of the Messiah (hence the name Messianic Zionists by which they are sometime called)

The position of MGB8, is also clear: A two state solution involves too much risk for the long-term security of Israel. Palestinians cannot be trusted. Although two nations share this Land, our nation has the upper-hand. Since we have overwhelming military superiority we can keep the Palestinians under control for as long as we wish. If they accept this quietly, we might even grant them some rights, if they rebel we could drive them out from here.

The difference between these two camps is quite substantial. The latter does not rely in a supposed Divine Right to the Land. It’s based in a cool assessment of the present imbalance of power. As such it is, in principle, negotiable. If conditions were to change or, the procedures advocated shown to be impractical, a re-assessment of their position might follow. The position of SteveK on the other hand is not negotiable. It’s based on a particular conception of God, or as, he frequently puts it, “an act of Faith”. Messianic Zionists are absolutely sure they are right; since their position is based on religious faith they cannot be proved wrong , at least not by empirical observations or rational arguments. Their position stems from an interpretation of God’s intentions, it transcends rationalism and, they believe, overrides it.

And this is high time to recall Amos Oz whose dictum has been so much publicized in this Thread:

Amos Oz, ….celebrated writer… says …."the real battle in the Middle East is no longer between Arabs and Jews but between fanatics of both faiths and the rest of the people in the Middle East who want to find some reasonable compromise”

I think too much has been made of his statement here but, precisely because the quote keeps appearing again and again, I can’t ignore it and I’ll (humbly) try to explore its possible intentions:

The ultra-nationalists referred above can hardly be called fanatics. There might be a number of hot-heads in the camp, but this happens even “in the best families”. I wouldn’t call Mr. Uzi Landau, their present leader a fanatic, neither one of their main ideologues, the late Rehavam Zeevi. As I said above, they are people that however wrong their present evaluation of the situation, if proven wrong, are liable to change their views; this is not fanaticism.

Fanaticism (from the Latin 'fanaticus' ,inspired by a god) is usually connoted as “uncritical zeal”. Uncritical is not compatible with rational. The statement:” I’m the stronger, therefore I dominate the weaker”, is impeccable as long as formal logic goes. However, if the situation were to change, for instance, if the USA, (which is even stronger), were to decide to impose a settlement of the conflict, they would (grudgingly) accept it. Nothing uncritical here.

On the other hand the present Religious Zionist camp (I say the present because it wasn't always like that) may be characterized by uncritical zeal. They believe their cause is right because they have Faith. End of discussion.

Problem with the word fanatic is that it’s usually taken as derogatory and people gets offended when called fanatics. They shouldn’t; a devoted missionary may be considered a fanatic, or a painter like van Gogh, or Jeanne D’Arc; there are millions of Sport's fanatics which are largely harmless.

The problem arises when fanatics get involved in a human conflict, like in Amoz Oz quote, “the battle in the Middle east”. It is then that they can become extremely dangerous. The fanatics on the Arab side are those that believe that infidels contaminate the Land, a Land that belongs only to Moslems because God said so. If there were no infidels around they could be considered harmless eccentrics, but if infidels are in the midst of them, they consider it their Holy Mission to blow them to pieces. These are uncritical zealots that act according to their faith and you can’t argue with them anymore than with the fanatics in the opposite side.

I think that that is precisely what Amos Oz meant by saying that “the real battle here is not between Arabs and Jews, but between fanatics of both sides and the people that wants to find a reasonable compromise.” So far it’s been the fanatics on both sides who are leading the way and thus winning the battle. A battle may be won but the war lost. People that wants to find a reasonable compromise should ensure that the fanatics don’t win this war.

[SteveK]

[...]

I think that that is precisely what Amos Oz meant by saying that “the real battle here is not between Arabs and Jews, but between fanatics of both sides and the people that wants to find a reasonable compromise.” So far it’s been the fanatics on both sides who are leading the way and thus winning the battle. A battle may be won but the war lost. People that wants to find a reasonable compromise should ensure that the fanatics don’t win this war.

Jorge:

Now, can we hear Jorge talk. You pm'd me that you have been in Israel for 30 years. As I responded to you, please don't pm me anymore. Say what you must here on the public forum. But, please say something from the depths of belief and faith IN SOMETHING from Jorge, himself, herself, yourself,--- whatever self,--- but FROM YOU.

So, Jesus Christ SuperStar for Peace on Earth, how do plan to stop 3,500+ years of Jewish heritage of faith in The Living God of Israel, and His destiny for His Chosen People in His Land of Israel as He spelled it out in His Torah and through His Prophets?

[Cato]

It's spelled: Orthodox and not Orthadox, you incompetent joke of an ingnorant atheist school teacher in Greece.

It's obvious that its not a simple mistake. You try to spell foolnetically.

You better polish up your English. The world doesn't speak Hebrew or Greek.

You'll need to be careful in what you say when you tell CNN how you took the land of Israel with the sword and how you hold it with a sword without a God in heaven to help you.

You do understand the English for the charges that you and your filthy Israeli atheist brazen dogs have brought on the Israeli Nation in being the O-C-C-U-P-I-E-R-S of Arab Land, the M-U-R-D-E-R-E-R-S who have inherited, and the W-A-R C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S ???

How are you going to smart mouth your way out of those international charges that you have brought on the Israeli Nation with your UNJEWISH Homeland in your broken ignorant English?

I probably know many more languages then you do, and considering that this is an informal internet chatroom it is not reasonable to expect perfect spelling.

The simple way to explain how we Israelis got our land is that we were a majority in many areas of British Mandate Palestine, the British wanted to give each group the right to self determination which would create a jewish, and Arab Country, and the UN agreed and so did what we call "Partition".

Israel's life is based on the principles of Self-Determination, not the Bible.

We had to hold the land with the sword true, and it is also true that we took land in defensive wars to use as cards at the peace negotiations.

Being called an athiest by a pig like you SteveK is a great compliment.

[Mira]

I probably know many more languages then you do, and considering that this is an informal internet chatroom it is not reasonable to expect perfect spelling.

And thank G-d for that. As someone who grew up with the crutch of spell check, I am practically as lost without it as most of you all are without your calculators.

[MGB8]

Continued from my Post # 120:


The position of MGB8, is also clear: A two state solution involves too much risk for the long-term security of Israel. Palestinians cannot be trusted. Although two nations share this Land, our nation has the upper-hand. Since we have overwhelming military superiority we can keep the Palestinians under control for as long as we wish. If they accept this quietly, we might even grant them some rights, if they rebel we could drive them out from here.

Now there's a straw man if I ever saw one.

I've clearly expressed my position before (note that I was pro-disengagement from Gaza.) That position is that a negotiated settlement with the Pal Arabs is preferable, but that I do not delude myself as to Pal Arab intentions or willingness to make peace with Israel.

More than that, you are right, I do not trust the Pal Arabs with the security of Israel... wasn't that the entire point of Zionism, to not rely on the favor of Non-Jews for the security of the people? Just because one group of Pal Arabs is willing to make peace, doesn't mean that they are willing to stop other pal Arabs from making war. Just because one group of Pal Arabs is in charge today, doesn't mean that they will be in charge tomorrow.

My main concern is not Pal Arab claims. And your quotes about "rights" are massive exagerations and really misleading and dishonest. You imply that Pal Arabs have no rights in the WB and Gaza... which is untrue, given that they have more rights than most Arab citizens of Arab nations. In fact, Pal Arabs LOST RIGHTS when the PA took over. Under "occupation", they had much more personal freedom and also local autonomy. So what "rights" are you talking about?

Now, if you want to talk about real estate squable, which is what this is... different story. But its not about "rights" - and saying so is pure demagogary.

A DIFFERENT issue is the fact that Israel controls and/or can control the WB but the Pal Arab residents don't have the vote, while Israeli residents do. In other words, the soveriegn, who has the legal monopoly on force and is the ultimate arbitror or complaints, represents some but not all. This is complicated because Israel is not fully sovereign in the WB, because they have yielded many of the trappings of sovereignty to the PA, in return for the promise of not attacking Israelis. The PA did the opposite of that.

While Israel has the right to annex all of the WB, it would then be required to give the Pal Arabs the vote, which would threaten Israel's existence. However, the power to annex ALL has, included within it, the power to annex
SOME. So Israel has the right to annex any portion of the WB that is necessary. On the other hand, and this is key, the issue is that the land that is renounced is not a "bantustan" for the Pal Arabs.

Additionally, however, the idea that Israel has no presence on the borders or control of the airspace is laughable, give the practicalities of the situation.

So, strategically, what is the end result. The end result is that Israel proceeds with the expecation that there will be no Pal Arab peace partner, because they've done nothing to show that there is one. That means consolidate a buffer around Jerusalem and other military positions to prevent bifurcation of Israel. At the same time, you want to keep the negotiation door open - but not abandon Israeli red lines, which are mostly security related.

If Israel does have to abdicate control of the borders, such as in Gaza, that's fine... (note, that does not apply to the borders of Israel and Hamas-istan)... but the end result, in all likelyhood, is a full on war with the Pal Arabs, leading likely to massive numbers of deaths and maybe the expulsion of the Arabs from the entire WB. After all, if the Pal Arabs continue to do what they have been doing - smuggling more arms, improving there aresenal, etc... with the stated goal of destroying Israel, either at once or in phases... well, what do you actually think will happen?

The position of Jorge is quite clear... Israel should beg the Pal Arabs for peace, and if the Pal Arabs agree and go back on their word and Israel is in a bad position, Israel should die quietly.

[Jorge]

Quote from SteveK Post#126:

“So, Jesus Christ SuperStar for Peace on Earth, how do plan to stop 3,500+ years of Jewish heritage of faith in The Living God of Israel, and His destiny for His Chosen People in His Land of Israel as He spelled it out in His Torah and through His Prophets?”

SteveK: first of all to call me “Jesus Christ Super Star” shows a lack of respect for the Christian religion. To equate a common man with Jesus and last of all, one like me, is an offence to their beliefs. If you want your religion to be respected you have to learn to respect those of others.

Second: I don’t “plan to stop 3500 years of Jewish heritage of faith in the God of Israel”. I have no intentions to do so. If you were to read earlier posts of mine with calm and attention, you’d realize that I have repeatedly said that it is precisely that faith that preserved Judaism intact through those thousands of years.

Third: the rest of your sentence is very confusing. I’m not quite sure what you mean for instance when you say “His destiny”. Are you implying that God has a “destiny” like us common mortals? What do you mean also by “in His Land of Israel”? This land is His, of course, but so is Alaska and Patagonia, as well as all the stars and galaxies. Why to talk of His Land, as if He had special property rights here, more substantial than in anywhere else?

I’m beginning to think that you tend to consider the God of Israel as a sort of tribal God, that belongs only to us. May be I’m just misreading you and, if so, I apologize. Admittedly, certain passages of the Torah, if read literally, might give that impression. However, Jewish religion is more than just the Torah and Prophets, it incorporates also how our Sages, working painstakingly through the centuries, interpreted what’s written. Although it is perfectly legitimate for each Jew to seek his own interpretations, these should be uttered with extreme caution and humility, bearing in mind that many, far wiser than we, have already written theirs.

[Mediocrates]

Why wouldn't Israel give up controlling borders between Gaza and Egypt, between the West Bank and Jordan, and so on? It would make no difference either way. Either Israel attempts to keep them on lock down, or they are simply allowed to open their borders to yet more warlords. Either way they stay broken and poor, violent and profoundly useless. Believe you me, the Palestinians are more interested in war and failure, the Palestinian 'cause' than they are statehood at the end of that cause.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...164437,00.html


Oldest Christian church in the world found in Meggido. Give Israel back to the Christians.

[Mediocrates]

And in terms of borders it seems that Palestinains in Gaza tend to bomb themselves

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...164761,00.html


Though I'm sure that indymedia and posters like mic will maintain that there's a secret Jewspiracy to make that happen.

[MGB8]

Its less control and more "presence." If the Pal Arabs really wanted to demonstrate their commitment to peace with Israel, they would say "sure, we'll share the burden (and the cost) of securing Palestine's broders." They could give Israel, instead of maybe a final veto on coming in and coming out, they could give Israel a "delay" power of up to say, 6 hours, and then maybe it would go to a 3rd party (plus then Israeli security would get a heads up) on questionable people and maybe a stronger delay on products/shipments (48 hours?)

Things can be worked out if both sides say "preventing terrorists and weapons from getting into the WB and Gaza is our goal."

The problem is, the Pal Arabs have the exact opposite goal - they want to get terrorists and weapons in, so they won't do any of those wonderful "getting to Yes" ideas or compromises that will allow Israel to make greater territorial compromises...

Why wouldn't Israel give up controlling borders between Gaza and Egypt, between the West Bank and Jordan, and so on? It would make no difference either way. Either Israel attempts to keep them on lock down, or they are simply allowed to open their borders to yet more warlords. Either way they stay broken and poor, violent and profoundly useless. Believe you me, the Palestinians are more interested in war and failure, the Palestinian 'cause' than they are statehood at the end of that cause.

[MGB8]

I think this one is better as to Pal Arab intentions:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...164720,00.html

Yet sunny idealists run headfirst of the cliff while insulting people who are more cautious with the lives of their friends and families as extremists...

No. The "peace camp" are the extremists. Extreme defeatists. Extremely arrogant and maybe racist (and dismissive of the Pal Arabs, because if you take them seriously, you pay attention to what they say and do) or, they are just anti-zionist/anti-semetic scum (or maybe just pure-Arabist where it matters less that they are Jooooos and more that they aren't Sunni Muslim Arabs...).