My Thoughts On Zionism

Where do I start, oh damn it where do I start? Hmmmm… Zionism… Zionism, Zionism, Zionism. There’s a lot to talk about but I’ll try to keep it short and concise.

112 Responses to “My Thoughts On Zionism”

1. Nobody on January 6th, 2007 10:53 pm

   frankly people i know here in tel aviv, me including, never call themselves zionists … since israel was established, zionism largely lost its relevance as an ideology .. its mostly a dead notion … neither mainstream israeli politicians use this word so much as it has no bearing on whether to negotiate with hamas or pull out of the west bank .. israeli leftists can perfectly call for bi-national state and claim that its true zionism …

   most european countries like germany or italy give automatically citizenship to people of german/italian descent… there is no ideology here … in the same most europeans who are worried by muslim immigration to europe are probably mostly worried by the failures of muslim minorities to integrate and the violence they bring from their countries into europe .. there is no ideology here either

   in the same way i think that israel should preserve its israeli majority and i support jewish immigration here but i dont see myself as a zionist or possessing any kind of ideology… most israelis are israelis because they were born in israel or spent here most of their life …they are just israelis and not zionists… and their desire to defend their state against arabs military or demographic threats has no ideology behind it … its a purely self preservation thing…

   your post could make sense 20-30 years ago, but we are living in the 21-st century … its nice to see that some arabs have finally grown up to be able to discuss zionism in a balanced way.. its just that they missed a few decades to do it…

2. Nobody on January 6th, 2007 11:07 pm

   i would add that israel is an absolutely regular national state … comparisons with the US are unappropriate … but israel can be easily compared to national states in europe … the same goes about israeli intentions to preserve its israeli majority .. this is absolutely normal and legitimate …

   for example, after the demise of the soviet union two baltic states estonia and latvia adopted dissriminating policies against russian minorities … in latvia the situation was particularly acute since the latvians constituted just 52% of the population ..this is because the communists used on purpose to encourage migration of russians to these two countries to destroy them as national homes for latvians and estonians …

   many of these migrant russians were denied citizenship after these two baltic states got independent and the laws were adopted to encourage latvian and estonian exhiles to return and to block unwanted migration from the neighboring russia .. i never heard that anybody called this racism and both countries passed all EU requirements to become full memebers of the EU … i never heard that the EU ever considered these policies as racism or violation of human rights …

   you d better check your definitions of racism once again

3. Nobody on January 6th, 2007 11:51 pm

   i can probably cultter the whole thread here with my comments because your post is just one big bunch of misconceptions but i dont want to repeat the story of the sudeanese refugees .. so i will try to end it here

   dont call israelis zionists … it hurts ears of too many israelis … since this country has $20,000 gdp per head and in the next decade it may reach the economic standards of the most developed european countries … the mainstream israelis, probably 75-80%, live in the post ideology stage … problems like west bank/gaza are discussed only on practical level .. for the majority of israelis there is no ideology here .. its only about if giving up on west bank will bring peace or the west bank will be used as a launchpad for more attacks on israel..

   dont call israelis jews … since its perfectly possible to be israeli and not to be jewish .. anybody who is born here, if he is not a muslim arab , will become , inevitably , israeli … to be israeli is a culture … it no longer means being jewish …it means to be born here , to speak modern hebrew and to adopt a certain lifestyle … if such a person also does a military service he is considered to be more israeli than most israelis ..

   i have no statistics about how many non jewish israelis live in israel but it may be in dozens if not hundreds of thousands … some indications are that up to 1/4 of one million of russian jews who came here over the last 15 years are not jewish properrly speaking .. israel’s right of return is modeled on nazi definition of being jewish … any person who would have been sent to concentration camps in nazi germany has a right for israeli citizenship .. this means that even if one of your grandparents is jewish you can repatriate to israel …

   neither being jewish automatically means being israeli … and this is true about many jewish orthodox living in israel …

   to make this advise even shorter -just call israelis israelis and you will be doing just fine

4. nominally challenged on January 7th, 2007 12:14 am

   Hey Drima,

   I disagree slightly with Nobody, but only slightly. In the internal Israeli left wing-right wing dialog, Zionism is bandied about on a regular basis. Only last week former Chief Justice Aharon Barak had to defend himself in the press against allegations that he was an “anti-Zionist” because of some contraversial judicial rulings he handed down which were perceived to be too left wing for those who were attacking him. Certainly, also, I think that it is a prevalent view of certain elements in the Israeli right wing that they are the real Zionists - this is more pronounced among those of the settlers (though certainly not all settlers, and certainly not only settlers) who see themselves on a religious mission. We would be stupid (and self-deluding) to deny the existence of this point of view. But it is just one of many points of view, and of no greater weight, nor due any greater consideration, than any other.

   As to whether they are right - in my view they are not. Whether we call ourselves Zionists or, as Nobody says, just refer to ourselves as Israelis since the tag of “zionism” is quite irrelevant to most of us, I think that anyone who lives in this country, does so out of a love of the country, whether they sit on the left or the right side of politics. Why would they stay here if they didn’t?

   Israel, as a country, has no aspirations to conquer the territory from the Nile to the Euphrates. We don’t need or want that land. Essentially, as a country, with a few differences that, on a global scale, are pretty miniscule, we just want the land that we already have. Some individuals may want more, and some individuals may be prepared to settle for less, but those are individuals, whose voice is heard because our society is one in which voices are heard - whether they form part of the consensus or not.

   Apart from that, the only people I’ve ever heard talk about the “Israel wants to expand from the Nile to Euphrates” thing are Arabs. Seriously. I’ve never heard a single Israeli ever discuss it at all.

   Apart from that, I agree with Nobody. Especially on the point about racism. Having said that, we could certainly reduce our internal discrimination, but … umm … at least we’re aware of it. So many countries have built-in discrimination and are in total denial of its existence.

   Drima, as usual, you are a breath of fresh air

5. Andrew Brehm on January 7th, 2007 12:34 am

   A very good summary.

   However, a few points, perhaps:

   “According to conservative religious Jews however, establishing a Jewish home in the land of Israel and the return of the Jewish Diaspora to it goes against Jewish law”

   1. That is misleading. You might want to rephrase that statement. There is a conservative Jewish movement (non-orthodox, non-reform), but conservative Judaism is Zionist. Also, the vast majority of orthodox and conservative Jews supports Zionism. The religious view you describe is supported by few very small sects.

   “Imagine if some American white Congressman suggested that America should become a mainly white State and should remain as such.”

   2. Judaism as an ethnic group is non-exclusive. Absolutely anybody can become a Jew. White supremacism, the movement here used for comparison, on the other hand believes that whites and other “races” should not mix. Judaism and Zionism simply don’t have that racist view. Zionism cannot be racist when the people it focuses on is not defined by a “race”, right?

   “What about pan-Arabism?”

   3. Pan-Arabism is in theory non-racist, since different peoples have become “Arabized” in the past (how much Arabs then accept these peoples are Arabs I do not know), but pan-Arabism as practised by Nasser’s Egypt, Syria, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is racist, as it is directed at and has attempted to wipe out Kurds, Jews, and Iranians often enough. Zionism has made no such attempt with anyone.

   “their land… or isn’t that Arab/Palestinian land”

   4. I never saw why this had to become a problem. When the Arab countries attacked, maybe the Palestinian Arabs should have defended their country, Jewish or not, and they would still be in it. Does the history you learned include Arab calls to Palestinian Arabs to leave Palestine until the Jews are dead? What about the Arab towns which did surrender to the Zionists and remained alive and well (like Nazareth?). The Druze also seemed to have done well, as have the Bedouins.

   “The creation of the Jewish State of Israel was NOT a pleasant process.”

   5. The creation of the state was a neutral process, pleasentness-wise. Nothing happened until the Arab attack. It is often said that the Palestinian exodus (the “Naqba”) was a result of the founding of the Jewish state, but as I see remember reading the exodus came AFTER the Arab attack, in which Palestinian Arabs participated, NOT after the founding of the state. Did you take that into account?

6. Andrew Brehm on January 7th, 2007 12:46 am

   A very good summary.

   However, a few points, perhaps:

   “According to conservative religious Jews however, establishing a Jewish home in the land of Israel and the return of the Jewish Diaspora to it goes against Jewish law”

   1. That is misleading. You might want to rephrase that statement. There is a conservative Jewish movement (non-orthodox, non-reform), but conservative Judaism is Zionist. Also, the vast majority of orthodox and conservative Jews supports Zionism. The religious view you describe is supported by few very small sects.

   “Imagine if some American white Congressman suggested that America should become a mainly white State and should remain as such.”

   2. Judaism as an ethnic group is non-exclusive. Absolutely anybody can become a Jew. White supremacism, the movement here used for comparison, on the other hand believes that whites and other “races” should not mix. Judaism and Zionism simply don’t have that racist view. Zionism cannot be racist when the people it focuses on is not defined by a “race”, right?

   “What about pan-Arabism?”

   3. Pan-Arabism is in theory non-racist, since different peoples have become “Arabized” in the past (how much Arabs then accept these peoples are Arabs I do not know), but pan-Arabism as practised by Nasser’s Egypt, Syria, and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is racist, as it is directed at and has attempted to wipe out Kurds, Jews, and Iranians often enough. Zionism has made no such attempt with anyone.

   “their land… or isn’t that Arab/Palestinian land”

   4. I never saw why this had to become a problem. When the Arab countries attacked, maybe the Palestinian Arabs should have defended their country, Jewish or not, and they would still be in it. Does the history you learned include Arab calls to Palestinian Arabs to leave Palestine until the Jews are dead? What about the Arab towns which did surrender to the Zionists and remained alive and well (like Nazareth?). The Druze also seemed to have done well, as have the Bedouins.

   “The creation of the Jewish State of Israel was NOT a pleasant process.”

   5. The creation of the state was a neutral process, pleasentness-wise. Nothing happened until the Arab attack. It is often said that the Palestinian exodus (the “Naqba”) was a result of the founding of the Jewish state, but as I see remember reading the exodus came AFTER the Arab attack, in which Palestinian Arabs participated, NOT after the founding of the state. Did you take that into account?

   “Does being a peace loving moderate Zionist who’s against the expansion of the current state of Israel mean you’re less of a Zionist who’s not following the real “evil Zionism”?”

   I don’t think so. Remember that the original Zionists worked in cooperation with the Hashemites. The original plan was to give some land to the Jews and then use that country as a connection between the Arab empire and the west. It WOULD have worked, I am sure.

   “Is your Zionism only limited to patriotism and love for Israel or does it include “expansionary” tendencies?”

   I prefer patriotism (love for a country) over nationalism (love for a nation) any day.

   “In other words, do you support the continuing construction of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land?”

   That is a difficult question. I don’t consider land lost in an aggressive war the attackers’ land. I do not support settlements, but I do not accept that the land is “Palestinian land”. It WOULD be Palestinian land, had the PA adhered to the peace treaty that made the land “Palestinian”.

   Without a peace treaty the land is Israeli land. That would be the normal situation according to international law, and I never accepted special modifications of the law just in case Israel is involved.

   The region around Medina is assumed to be owned by the Saudis, even though they took it from the Hashemites, so why wouldn’t land taken by Israel be Israeli land? Especially considering why Israel took the land (defending itself against total destruction)… What’s so special about that land that suddenly the usual principle doesn’t apply any more?

   (What about German lands lost to Poland in World War II? Are they German lands or Polish lands? Wy is the answer different when a Jewish state is involved?)

   My own personal opinion is that the land lost by Germany to Poland in the war in which Germany attacked Poland is now Polish. I grew up in Germany, my family is German, I accepted that fact. Germany and Poland now have excellent relations.

   In short, I don’t see the problem here.

   Perhaps it comes down to a comparison. What do the two sides want and what happens if one side wins.

   The way I see it:

   1. Israel wants to survive and doesn’t particularly care about Palestinian Arabs.

   2. Palestinian Arabs and other Arab countries want Israel destroyed, want all Jews dead, arguably (at least people like Nasrallah want that), and want no Jews in any Arab country (which is why Arab Jews fled to Israel).

   3. Israel did win, several times, and the Palestinian Arabs still exist and have grown in number. Israel apparently seeks neither destruction of any Arab population nor revenge for Arab attempts to destroy Israel.

   4. What would happen if the Arab side wins once?

   I believe we would see an exodus of the surviving Jews to Europe and America, the middle east would be Jew-free.

   Would we then know whether Pan-Arabism is racist?

7. Andrew Brehm on January 7th, 2007 12:46 am

   (I actually wanted to post this reply in two parts… Oh, well…)

8. howie on January 7th, 2007 2:04 am

   ST-

   Maybe I can add my points later…but I have something different to address.

   I have read your earliest posts and it is clear to me that you have evolved as a thinker and truly are a seeker of truth.

   I could argue various “micro” points with you…but I am more concerned with the macro…the marco is that you have seen through many of the huge lies and have now entered that difficult shadow world of grey…vs. the “black and white”.

   There are endless points of views, interpretations of history, even different types of Zionism…different types of Jews, different types of Israelis and on and on.

   But you saw through the big barrier and saw through it quickly and I want to communiate my respect and admiration of your intellectual honesty, your respect and thirst for truth and your ability to criticism yourself and “your own”.

   By-the-way…the Jewish Bible says a lot of things, including in Isaiah where God promises Egypt to be “my beloved” and Assyria to be a great nation and Lebanon also to be a great nation…doesn’t say anything about the Jews running the Bagdad Edwards or the Damascus McDonald’s. Most Biblical references note “Dan to Beersheva” and implore Moses about a land “across the Jordan”.

   Anyhow…don’t expect the Zionists to show up with land deeds anytime soon in Basra (though my wife’s parents do still “technically” own land there) since it was stolen by the Iraqi government. But that is another story.

9. howie on January 7th, 2007 2:13 am

   One point I do have to make “Zionism is racism”…well it is exclusive, but not racist. If you go to Israel…you will meet people from about 100 nationalities…and different races including blacks and whites, SE Asians, you name it…about 100 languages spoken there. 1.5 million non-Jewish Arabs are citizens, including Druse and Christians.

   So racist is clearly a wrong term…exclusive of; Muslims, Christians, Bhuddists, Zorasters, Bhai’s, Santarias, Hindus etc…well yes to some extent…but no RACE is excluded.

   Political Zionists see Israel as; “we better protect and care for ourselves because nobody has or will”

   Religious Zionism says “Bible talks about this land being ours (borders are up for argument, but don’t typically start in West Persia), God commands it and we are supposed to be here and this is the fulfillment of the Biblical promise”.

   The religious anti-Zionists are a fringe group that likes kissing Ahmedinejad…hmmm give me that Persian love baby.

10. Freedom on January 7th, 2007 4:50 am

    Any “ism” fails to properly define what it purports to do. There are too many subtle shades of gray that go totally unnoticed in the purely black and white definition of an “ism.”

    I fought in the Israeli army under generals I worshiped in the military but later absolutely despised in politics. I went to war not against Arabs because they were Arabs, but I went to war because I wanted to defend my wife, my children, and their future in our country, Eretz Israel! If I managed to shoot somebody shooting at our group there was no glee. As a Jew I find no pleasure in death. As a human being the blood of another individual represents a loss, an irreplaceable loss, for all mankind. But, I had to defend my kids, my wife, my land. None of my friends in the army ever desired war, we wanted peace, peace to pursue our professions, peace to enjoy our families, peace to pursue our individual dreams.

    Jews, for thousands of years never forgot the land they came from… the world at large saw to that… When Israel became an independent country, the Arab nations surrounding it immediately attacked, but not before urging the local Arabs to flee so that Arab armies could kill off the Jews. The recordings are still extant, by Israel’s first Prime Minister - David Ben Gurion, pleading with the local Arabs not to leave, many listened and stayed, many left enticed by the Arab promises that after victory they would get all the Jewish properties… That Arab fantasy, like many others remained a hateful fantasy… but a fantasy nevertheless. Rather than take in the “refugees” and treat them like citizens they were kept in subhuman conditions by the Jordanians, by the Lebanese, by the Egyptians, by the Syrians, etc… These refugees were conveniently turned into political pawns, kept under horrible conditions so as to foster their hatred not towards their deceiving brothers, but against the Jews in Israel. By contrast the Arabs who chose to remain in Israel, not only have among the highest standard of living and education in the Middle East, they are well represented Israel’s Parliament without fear of retaliation even when they loudly disagree with Israeli policies.

11. Freedom on January 7th, 2007 4:51 am

    The Palestinians, who never identified themselves as such until the 60s under Golda Meir, could have had a country of their own long ago. UN envoy, Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte - no friend of Israel, he - said that there was no interest among the Arabs in creating two countries, only interest was in the destruction of Israel. Arafat was offered repeatedly the chance of laying down arms and work towards a two state solution - two countries side by side, working together, growing together and cooperating in every arena… yet, he repeatedly rejected these offers. The PA Charter, in spite of many promises has not yet abrogated the clauses calling for the destruction of the Jewish State. Who has suffered the most, because of this? Certainly, Israel has suffered tremendously! But the very Palestinians whose interest, Egyptian born Arafat claimed to have at heart, suffered more! The average income is dismal by most standards, the living conditions with the notable exception of a few powerful families are still appalling. Fatah and Hamas are at each other’s throats., with daily shootouts and kidnappings.

    When the “Palestinians” wake up and find themselves fed up with the petty infighting which only prolongs their misery, when they choose a truly moderate, reformist leadership with vision they will find the “Zionist Entity” waiting with open arms to negotiate a true, dignified peace that will stop the death toll on both sides, that will produce cooperation in all areas of life, that will bring a much needed peace to people weary of war, weary of blood, weary of death.

    As for who are the Neturey Karta, those brown nosing Ahmedinajad, or those who like their Jerusalem leader were under Arafat’s pay (as was revealed in recently declassified documents - 2 weeks ago) see my Standing in the Gates of Infamy

12. Drima on January 7th, 2007 5:31 am

    Damn… okay, i just woke up and checked this post first thing in the morning.

    Thanks for all your replies and thanks for making me confused!

    I’ll get back to all of you one by one a bit later. I need to digest everything you guys said first.

13. Sammy Benoit on January 7th, 2007 5:43 am

    I kind of get confused when people call Zionism rasict because using some of the same parameters, people could call Islam as practiced by Saudi Arabia racist. In fact Saudi Arabia could be called an apartheid state with a racist religion and I never see Yet I never see anybody try to call any other nation for what it is. The world is always demonizing Israel, it time to look at the bigger fish

    Lets call a spade a spade, Saudi Arabia the home of Islam, where millions of Muslims went on Haj (pilgrimage) last week, is an apartheid state. And their version of Islam is racist. At least if you go by UN definition.
    Look at the Facts:

    They are building a fence to keep out terrorist. We know that when a state does this it is called an apartheid fence. Thats what Saudi Arabia, the EU, and people like the peanut president call Israel’s fence. So Saudi Arabia must be an apartheid state.

    From Bad Fences by John R. Bradley TNR Issue date 03.01.04.The Saudi government says smugglers from its neighbor provide the explosives and weapons used by radical Islamists, who carried out two massive suicide attacks against civilian targets in Saudi Arabia last year, killing more than 50 and injuring hundreds. Saudi Arabia, one of the most vocal critics of Israel’s security fence, is even emulating Israel’s example, erecting a highly contentious barrier along its porous frontier–part of a larger plan to build an electronic surveillance system across the entire length of the kingdom’s land and sea borders.

    Yemen is says that the Saudi apartheid fence is really a land grab..Isn’t that what the UN says about the Israeli Fence.

    The history of Saudi-Yemeni enmity makes the Yemen government wary of working with Riyadh, especially on border issues. In fact, this week, a Yemeni delegation arrived in Riyadh for emergency talks about the fence, after the Yemenis submitted an official complaint to the Saudi government. The 2000 treaty demarcating the common border stated that twelve miles on either side of the border should be neutral territory. Yemen’s complaint states that, by building the wall in the middle of that territory, Saudi Arabia is effectively confiscating this neutral land. Ordinary Yemenis I spoke with in Sa’ada share the government’s anger: They even still bitterly refer to Najran and Abha, two towns inside Saudi Arabia that used to have close links with Yemen before a 1934 border war, as Yemeni cities.

    What would the UN Say about a country where the public practice of any religion other than Islam, including Christianity and Judaism, the presence of churches, and open possession of Christian religious materials are outlawed .Where Anyone breaking this law may be imprisoned or deported to their port of origin. A state wont even let a foreigner bring in a bible or where people have to put Christmas trees in dark rooms so they aren’t found out. The state is Saudi Arabia.

    The UN once called Zionism racist, yet Israel (what Saudi Arabia calls it the Zionist entity) allows true freedom of religion. The Israeli government zealously guards the rights of people to practice their any faith they choose. Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia is RACIST. Just read this article from Arutz Sheva.

    Saudi Arabia Bars Bible-Bearing Flight Attendant
    16:03 Dec 31, ‘06 / 10 Tevet 5767
    by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

    A Bible-bearing Christian flight attendant has been barred by her British employer from flying to Saudi Arabia, where Christianity is illegal.

    The flight attendant, who works for British Midland Airways (BMI), is “a committed Christian [who] likes to take her Bible, which was once her mother’s, with her when she travels,” according to journalist Claire Bergen.

    The British Foreign Office backed the airline. “The importation [to Saudi Arabia] and use of narcotics, alcohol, pork products and religious books, apart from the Quran (Koran), and artifacts are forbidden,” it stated. The London Telegraph quoted a BMI official as saying, “We issue advice to all our staff and passengers that these are the guidelines. She is saying she wants to carry her Bible with her. We are saying we cannot start designing rules around individuals when we have several hundred members of staff. To take every personal preference into account would be impossible.”

    The stewardess has taken the case to an industrial (labor) court.

    It is not the first time that religious practice of airline workers has been curtailed because of Saudi rules. A flight attendant working for British Airways (BA) was forbidden to wear her cross visibly on the route to Saudi Arabia.

    Even Christmas trees are banned in the oil-rich kingdom, which claims to allow religious freedom. An Iowa woman wrote in the Wichita Eagle earlier this month about her experience in 2003. “Christianity was not allowed to be practiced,” wrote Charlotte Brock Rady. “Shopping in the back alleys of Jeddah one night, we discovered a market that had hidden away upstairs in a dark room a small artificial Christmas tree and lights.”

    Another worker in the country reported that her tree was confiscated at the border.

    Nevertheless, on a recent visit to Princeton University, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal declared, “Arab tradition and Muslim tradition is geared towards having an open mind. Muslim religion accepts Christianity and Judaism.”

    Last year, a Saudi Arabian court sentenced a teacher to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes for discussing the Bible and praising Jews.

    He was charged with promoting a “dubious ideology, mocking religion, saying the Jews were right, discussing the Gospel and preventing students from leaving class to wash for prayer,” according to a local newspaper report.

    A report in 2005 by the U.S. State Department criticized Saudi Arabia, saying religious freedoms “are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam.”

    Please don’t talk to me about the “moderate Saudi government” or the “religion of peace.” That is simply politically correct BS. Saudi Arabia is an Apartheid State and as the home of the most Holy Sites in Islam, it practices a Racist religion.

14. Sammy Benoit on January 7th, 2007 5:48 am

    Take a look at Human rights watch that should be spending its time on Darfur yet the only nation it ever condemmed is Israel You see, people are dying by the hundreds of thousands in Darfur the latest estimates are above 400,000, over 200,000 women and girls have been brutally raped and tortured. Yet the UN Human rights council (the folks who tried to send Bishop Tutu to investigate Gaza) refuses to do anything about it. The disgusting wretches on this council, who find an excuse to condemn Israel every 15-20 minutes, will not condemn Sudan for the genocide in Darfur. Civilians are being killed every day by Arab militias controlled by the President for Life, and bed-wetting killer, Omar al-Bashir. But that’s not all, those same people being targeted by the Omar the Bloodthirsty Basher are also starving to death, but this poor excuse for a human, announces that he is going to give TEN MILLION DOLLARS where it can help cause additional deaths—to the PLO so they can buy more bombs.
    (Chaim at Freedom’s Cost has more on that story here)

    Please read the article below, print it out, and take some action today!

    UN rights council stops short of condemning Sudan
    UN Human Rights Council, under pressure to act against Sudan atrocities, refrains from criticizing Sudanese government Wednesday, compromises on sending investigators to report on slaying of civilians, rapes, destruction, mass flight. Meeting in emergency session, the 47 nation council unanimously passed a resolution expressing “concern regarding the seriousness of the human rights and humanitarian situation in Darfur,” and calling for a team of five “highly qualified persons” plus the UN’s expert on rights in Sudan to look into the atrocities. The resolution stopped short of mentioning any role of the Sudanese government or the militias it is accused of supporting in attacks on civilians. The government rejects accusations it supports the militias, who are accused of some of the worst atrocities. Luis Alfonso de Alba, the Mexican diplomat who chairs the council and will put together the team, told reporters: “I can guarantee a good and balanced composition.” He said they would be impartial, “Highly qualified personalities.”

    Hey I got an idea…Tutu isn’t doing anything, maybe they will give him the VIP pass that Israel wouldn’t.

    Amnesty International condemned the resolution’s timidity in failing to recognize the complicity of the Sudanese government in the serious and systematic human rights violations taking place in Darfur.The assessment mission established by the Human Rights Council must put an end to the shameless lies and denial of responsibility of the government of Sudan for the situation in Darfur,” The London-based rights campaigner said in a statement

    OMG When I agree with Amnesty International…You know its bad.

    Top UN officials and aid agencies on Tuesday were leading a wide assault of strongly worded statements expressing frustration over how hard it has been to help people suffering from nearly four years of bloodshed

    A mission of Jewish students attended the meeting in Geneva and called upon the international community to act immediately to save the people of Darfur. Daniel Translateur, Chairman of the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) and head of the delegation of Jewish students to the UN, said: “We, as Jews, cannot stand aside and watch a people be submitted to the same genocide as we have suffered.” “We, the youth of the Jewish world, who live with the memory of the trauma of the Holocaust, feel that we have a moral, historical and personal commitment to involve ourselves in the attempt to stop the mass murders of the people of Darfur,” he added. “The lesson the Jewish people learned from the Holocaust is that we cannot stand aside and watch genocide being carried out on another people. We will always remember the lessons of our ancestors: ‘To save one life is as if you have saved the world’, and ‘Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it’,” Translateur said.

    The lack of blame for the Sudanese government was in stark contrast to the council’s resolutions on Israel which have condemned the Jewish state for many practices, including “the systematic targeting and killings of civilians” in Lebanon and “attacks on human life, property, critical infrastructure and environment.”The council, which replaced the widely discredited Human Rights Commission in June, has used its six previous sessions to pass eight resolutions denouncing Israeli treatment of Arabs.

    No other government [except Israel] has been accused of rights violations.

    The United Nations, what a bunch of horrible, horrible people !

15. tsedek on January 7th, 2007 7:54 am

    Drima I’m not gonna read all the comments above, because like you I suppose they’re so many So, if I double-up - sorry….

    Zionism in core is no racist ideology but a national ideology as you mentioned. Of course one can find quotes from here to Timbuktu by various israeli statesmen over the years claiming exactly the opposite but, fact remains that, would early settlers not have been attacked and would the immigration (on soil, either bought or belonging to no-one and having no specific authority -referring to the status of the land after the Ottoman Empire) not have been resisted - there remains very much doubt that - according to the very principles zionism is originally based on - democracy, equality etc. - a typical jewish character of this country would be in place right now.

    The idea of zionism was to have a “home” - without injuring the indigenous people and its rights here. THAT IS ZIONISM.

    That has turned into something completely different - is because from its very beginning it was resisted with violence and … yes, yes….. defended (and by certain extreme elements provoked) with violence (and terribly manipulated by the English - who profited from conflict here to be able to justify their control and presence). Here you got it: the long blaming game and escalation road that led us to where we are today.

    Anyway, I know of NO Israel who wanna expand to the Euphratis (really funny is that the first time I heard this ridiculous thing it was the egyptian sandmonkey who had to explain to me what people meant with that ) - and, except for some religious fanatics - nobody wants anything else than just live in peace and make it through the month - being able to raise their children and live.

    I think that, ironically, the only thing that keeps the national ’spirit’ this much alive is because of the threats thrown at it…..

    There’s a very old joke that went round here for years which says “why would the arabs bother to destroy us when all they have to do is sit back and let us destroy ourselves” (cause israeli’s are always in conflict with each-other).

    Tse.

16. Mark on January 7th, 2007 8:13 am

    Assuming Anthropoligists are correct, and I can trace my ancestry back to eastern Africa at some time, can I claim to be indiginous to eastern Africa?

17. Drima on January 7th, 2007 9:15 am

    Sammy, Islam as practiced by Saudi Arabia is racist, yes indeed. However I don’t believe Islam itself is racist but that’s another debate all on its on. Anyways no more “Islam-centered” comments please because that will just make us go off topic and I really want this discussion to mainly stick to Zionism. As for the issue of Darfur and the UN’s Security Council’s obession with Israel, I so agree with you but like I said. Let’s try sticking to Zionism.

    I’ll be back later. Busy now.

18. Nobody on January 7th, 2007 10:42 am

    drima

    regarding what happened here in 1948 there is still a debate going on in academic circles in Israel about this … the opinions range from the versions given on this thread by several israelis to that it was a full scale ethnic cleansing carried out under a mega plan developed years in advance…

    the truth will be probably never known since most people who could know it are no longer alive … but i would mention that on the israeli side all archives are open (which is not the situation on the arab side) … yet even the proponents of the deliberate ethnic cleansing theory are using mostly indirect evidence as no documents confirming ethnic cleansing mega plan were found in the archives..

    personally i tend to believe morris on this issue and he takes a position between the two but closer to what i would define as partial ethnic cleansing .. if you are interested, i have a post on my blog that concentrates some articles dealing with this issue..

19. Drima on January 7th, 2007 1:25 pm

    Nobody,

    “israeli leftists can perfectly call for bi-national state and claim that its true zionism …”

    I’m not really sure I understand that. I’ve always thought that the Right is the one that’s “more Zionist” while the left is “less Zionist”. Why can’t Right Wing Zionists call for the same thing?

    “you d better check your definitions of racism once again”

    Your points are well-stated regarding the term “racism”. Maybe racism is not the appropriate word.

    “i would add that israel is an absolutely regular national state … comparisons with the US are unappropriate ”

    Right NOW, yes I would agree with you that Israel is a regular national state but the patch of land it exists on top of wasn’t always Israeli.

    “dont call israelis zionists … it hurts ears of too many israelis …”

    Heh? Why on earth would it hurt too many Israeli ears?? How come? Isn’t Zionism about the support of a Jewish home in Israel? You support your home, you support Israel and therefore you’re Zionist. It’s nationalism and patriotism. Plus don’t most Jews consider themselves to be Zionist? I’m no authority on Zionism but I strongly disagree with you on this one. Moreover, I don’t think my post is a big pile of misconceptions. After reading all the comments, I realize there are a number of points I might need to rethink.

    “dont call israelis jews … since its perfectly possible to be israeli and not to be jewish ..”

    Makes perfect sense.

    “anybody who is born here, if he is not a muslim arab , will become , inevitably , israeli ”

    Why what’s wrong with being Arab and Muslim? Is it about loyalty?

    NC,

    The first paragraph of your first comment calmed the confusion brought about by Nobody’s comments.

    Andrew,

    Nicely broken down. I’m not sure I fully agree with point #4 and the first paragraph of point #5 though. And I find debating the micro aspects of history is tiring and endless. Nonetheless, thanks for the feedback.

    Howie,

    thanks for your kind words. As for the Neturei Karta, I honestly liked them for being vocal critics of Israel previously but my opinion of them changed after they attended AJ’s conference.

    Freedom,

    your first comment is interesting so thanks for it. In the second you mention this:

    “Arafat was offered repeatedly the chance of laying down arms and work towards a two state solution - two countries side by side, working together, growing together and cooperating in every arena… yet, he repeatedly rejected these offers.”

    Weren’t the offers biased? Wasn’t the control over water sources, air traffic, borders etc. too limited?

    Tse,

    “Of course one can find quotes from here to Timbuktu by various israeli statesmen over the years claiming exactly the opposite”

    That’s very very true. Some of the crap they say is very hateful. You certainly have your own share of loony nut case Rabbis too.

    “The idea of zionism was to have a “home” - without injuring the indigenous people and its rights here. THAT IS ZIONISM.”

    Unfortunately in application, things became very different given the situation when events took place.

    Thank you all for your feedback.

20. The Raccoon on January 7th, 2007 1:35 pm

    Great post, Drima!

    At the moment, I have the time to say only thing:

    There are maybe a few hundred proponents of “Greater Israel” among the Jews worldwide. They are really weird people who are basing this notion on a very peculiar interpretation of the Bible - ultra-religious wirdos.

    And the first time I have heard of the notion was on an Arab blog as well

    The reason for settlements on terrotories conquered in ‘67 is, like most things in Israel, security. Pre-’67 borders were for all intents and purposes impossible to defend. The Yehuda and Shomron highlands are strategically vital, and making Israeli territory wider than a few miles creates a vital obstacle in the path of the possible Jordanian (say) tanks. Without this barrier, Israel can be easily divided into three parts by a single armored division within a few minutes. The settlements were started by the army as some sort of modern-day fortresses - hill-top strongpoints which control the valleys and can stall an advancing army until the reserves can be called up.

    They still are these fortresses. We Jews are a paranoid bunch, and with good reason, as all our history - from the most ancient to the most recent - shows.

21. Andrew Brehm on January 7th, 2007 1:46 pm

    “I’ve always thought that the Right is the one that’s “more Zionist” while the left is “less Zionist”. ”

    The original Zionists were mostly socialists. If you read stories set in Israel in the 50s and 60s you will find many references to “comrades” and socialism. The “right wing” were those Jews who wanted to remain loyal to their respective countries (mostly Germany until the 1930s, the British Empire, USA; I don’t believe Russian Jews felt much loyalty to the Russian Empire, before and after the communist revolution).

    Think about it. Kibbutzim were a result of that socialism. Stalin voted for the creation of Israel because he thought Israel would be a socialist country or at least a Soviet client.

    “Why what’s wrong with being Arab and Muslim? Is it about loyalty?”

    I don’t understand his point either. I have met many Muslim Arabs in Israel who are completely and often fiercely loyal to the state.

    I have read about Bedouins who don’t like Palestinian (i.e. non-nomadic) Arabs and saw the Zionists and later the state of Israel as a useful ally against their old enemy.

    I have met Druzim who hated Hizbullah a lot more than any Jew I have ever met and had the most pro-Israeli opinions I have ever heard.

    And I have met Israeli Arabs who just wanted to stay out of the conflict but would never dream of hurting anyone. (And they do like their Israeli passports!)

22. Nobody on January 7th, 2007 3:03 pm

    drima

    i think that i explained the zionism thing .. i can do another try …

    zionism became an absolutely virtual concept void of any real meaning … the majority of jews in the world live in israel these days … in the diapora many jews realign themselves along israeli lines … it can be easily seen on many young american jews who reassert their connection with israel not through religion but by mastering israeli street slang …

    so in this sense israel is a just a regular national state .. the consensus among majority of israelis about israel as a state for israelis or supporting jewish immigration is a typical behavior of any nation that has a state of its own … it has little ideology behind this …most israelis are apprehensive of arabs because of their hostility and their habit to regularly hold civil wars in which hundreds of thousands of poeple are slaughtered … there is little ideology behind this…

    contrary to all the nonsense you were taught at school there is nothing in zionism about borders or territory.. zionism is only a vague idea that jews should have a state of their own … zionists could debate whether to establish jewish state here or in uganda … such a debate is impossible in israel now because for israelis israel is no longer an ideology but a state of their own…

    i am a right wing person .. most of my friends are right wingers .. i live in the bastion of israeli secular left, TA .. so i regularly participate in debates between israeli leftists and right wingers … the word zionism is never , and never means never, mentioned… most of these people don’t even think about themselves as zionists … its all about purely practical considerations …

    i was an olso supporter 10 years ago… this means that i was anti zionist ? these days i think that we should not to negotiate with hamas because these people cannot be trusted.. this means what ? that i went back to being zionist?

    its the same with israeli politics … when olmert was with sharon was he zionist ? when they pulled out of gaza he became anti zionist? the convergence plan envisioned that israel would pull out out of 80% of the west bank … its zionism or 1/4 zionism ? 20% of the west bank makes a politician zionist or anti zionist ?

    there is nothing of real substance that zionism contributes to the current left - right debate about what to do with the palestinians … its an empty word, a lip service to something that is so vague that it lost any meaning in our days … the majority of israeli right wingers would gladly give up on gaza/west bank if only proper security guarantees were provided .. there is no zionism here …

    zionism is dead as an ideology .. since it fullfiled his mission .. its an empty word void of meaning that most people still use because of intellectual and conseptual inertia…

23. Nobody on January 7th, 2007 3:24 pm

    what is true though is that all anti semites these days have converted into anti zionists … zionism in the perception of the arabs and western leftists play the role that judaism once played for the anti semites …

    the anti semites claimed that the jews has a sort of racist religion that makes them kill and drink blood of christian babies … these days the same type of people claim that jews in israel has a kind of ideoloogy that makes them to invade neighboring countries and kill babies … this is of course a sheer lie…

    in reality if you ask a normal person in tel aviv if he is a zionist he would think that you are crazy and won’t understand your question… the majority of people here posting in the name of zionism are apprently diaspora jews .. for most israelis zionism is simply not an issue …

    people who mostly use the terms zionist and zionism these days are mostly neo-anti-semites … people who oppose israeli policies for legitimate reasons never talk about zionism or zionists.. they call israelis israelis and israeli policies israeli policies …

24. nominally challenged on January 7th, 2007 5:11 pm

    Drima I’m going to agree with Nobody again, but with a small qualification. Zionism is an irrelevant concept for Jews living inside Israel. For Jews living outside of Israel, it is still a relevant concept. Jews living outside Israel, who are not Israelis but are ‘pro-Israel’ are still likely to describe themselves as ‘Zionists’. Many pro-Israel Jewish communal organizations in the Diaspora use the word “Zionist” in their names, as an expression of their connection to that ideology. And when Jews from countries in the West (i.e., who have a choice of whether to immigrate or not) immigrate to Israel, most, if not all, would probably cite “Zionism” as their main reason (although not necessarily - these days, more and more people might simply say ‘because it’s our real home’; which is similar, but not quite the same). Of those, the ones who in fact stay (and don’t go back) would probably not claim to be staying in Israel because of Zionism. More often than not it’s because they found a good job, found a good spouse, whatever. Ideology will only go so far, unless you are a fanatic. Sure, we have our fair share (or perhaps even more than our fair share) of fanatics, but they remain a minority, and always will.

    In Israel, for Israelis, Zionism is an anachronism - but elsewhere, it is not. So that in Israel, Israelis just refer to themselves as Israelis - not as Zionists, non-Zionists, anti-Zionists, post-Zionists or anything else. However, that is not to say that the word does not come up from time to time, as I mentioned in my previous comment.

    Like Nobody, I live in Tel Aviv. I am, however, more to the left than Nobody. I have never been called an ‘anti-Zionist’ or anything else with the word ‘Zionist’ in it, because of my left-wing philosophies. If anyone were to call me that, I’d probably just laugh at them, and that would more than likely be appropriate, because it would probably indeed be meant as a joke.

25. The Raccoon on January 7th, 2007 5:25 pm

    There are loads of misconceptions floating around that I just don’t understand.

    Zionism is the notion that Jews deserve a national home, preferrably in Israel. It’s really baffling to me why people would consider it evil in any way. The word has been highjacked by our enemies and their useful idiots, however, and the meme twisted, for all too many. There are many deluded or self-hating Israeli Jews (especially in Tel Aviv) who, in their desire to be decadent and anti-semitic Eurotrash, would not define themselves as Zionists… simply because they are morons who forgot how their grandparents and parents died. I just wish they’d move to Europe already. For the rest of us - almost everyone - being a Zionist is as obvious as is breathing. The goal has been achieved, and now we have a new goal - to make sure we are not destroyed.

    Howie -

    Being Jewish is: 1) either being a Jew by religion, 2) a Jew by birth, 3) both, or 4) a person that other Jews accept as a Jew (usually #4 entails #1 & #2).
    Normally people who convert to Judaism become foster memebers of the Jewish tribe. And Israel is the NATIONAL homeland of the Jews - meaning the homeland of the Jewish nation. It also happens to be the homeland of the Jewish religion, but this is secondary and has nothing to do with the State of Israel. The many languages spoken by Jews in Israel are languages of the Diaspora - these people are ethically Jewish (unless they are converts, and these are very few indeed - Judaism is very difficult to convert to). The 12 clans of the Hebrews mixed with assorted other tribes, and different clan territories (as well as marriages within the clans) made sure that each clan was unique. Jonathan, King Davids beloved friend/boyfriend, was swarthy with black hair; the Hashmoneans were fair-skinned and red-haired. After the last Diaspora, the disparate Jewish communities continued to marry among themselves, and rape by the locals (along with the occasional marriage) made sure that each Diaspora community looks different. And yet they are all Hebrews, the same people that descended on Cana’an from the deserts, many thousands of years ago.

    Andrew - I have met very, very few Arabs who are loyal to Israel. The few that I did are from Abu Gosh and one from Kfar Masr (but he’s half-Bedouin). I have served with many Muslims who were fiercely loyal, though - Bedouins and Circassians. Druze are not quite Arab nor Muslim, so they don’t count - but they are more loyal than loyal. The Arabs and Bedouins hate each other’s guts as a general rule - the Bedouins raided the Arabs for thousands of years, and the Arabs oppressed the Bedouins whenever they could.

    Drima -

    Erasmus said that the most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war. An offer can’t be “biased” - an offer is an offer. Control over water sources etc was open to negotiation… but the offers were all INCREDIBLY generous: peace, prosperity, security, self-rule, etc. The offers were, alas, answered the usual Palestinian way - with violence.

    And some of Israeli Rabbis are as mad as the Mad Mullahs. As I always say - never trust a guy in a dress with a chamberpot on his head. When a Rabbi declares Eilat not to be a part of Israel, when Rabbis open a war against the color red and have heated debates on whether wigs anger God or not… you can bet your arse something is very wrong with these people

26. howie on January 7th, 2007 5:28 pm

    To piggyback on NC…many of the fanatics are imports…often from the USA…who get religion and then get a gun and feel empowered instead of bullied…I think a bit along the lines of the Muslim recurits that come from all over to join Al Qaeda and such. Those fanatics often raise a lot of hell and then move back to a suburb in New York…it is a twisted kind of idealism.

    The point being…your average Israeli does not wake in the morning and think about killing little Palestinian babies or invading Bagdad. They worry about jobs, wife, kids, drugs, alcohol abuse, terrible traffic, sick parents, God, their soccer team, car repairs, cancer, grandchildren.

    Many Muslims will just not accept the key issue…and Raccoon said it…SECURITY and that means trust. We want peace…don’t want to kill anybody, would make deals about land…but we have learned we CANNOT TRUST the other side.

    And again…today’s Zionism is mostly religious and has to do with Biblical phrophecy (Damn I can NEVER spell that word!!) about the Land, Jerusalem, Jews returning, Messiah coming and hopefully a day where Rodney King’s dream is realized…”we along just get along”.

    But fire-breathing Zionists running around…shit my nephew is in the army right now and his biggest dream is going to trance concerts all around the world…he might invade Bagdad for a good party…but not for Greater Israel.

27. nominally challenged on January 7th, 2007 5:40 pm

    Drima:

    Heh? Why on earth would it hurt too many Israeli ears?? How come? Isn’t Zionism about the support of a Jewish home in Israel? You support your home, you support Israel and therefore you’re Zionist. It’s nationalism and patriotism. Plus don’t most Jews consider themselves to be Zionist?

    ‘hurts the ears’ is a literal translation from Hebrew. What I think Nobody meant was simply - it sounds funny. The reason is that it’s an anachronism. In Israel, for Israelis, the idea of a Jewish State is fact. We’re not striving to achieve it any more, it’s here. So using the name of the ideology that got us here to describe us just sounds funny, and people don’t relate to it. To an Israeli ear, it’s old fashioned. Our nation is Israel, so we are Israelis.

    I’m no authority on Zionism but I strongly disagree with you on this one.

    Why? On what basis can you disagree with the way in which another person defines himself?

    For Israelis, Zionism was about building a Jewish home in Israel (or wherever the world would let them build it), not about supporting it, since at that time, there was no State to support - it didn’t exist yet. For non-Israelis, Zionism is about supporting that state, but primarily because they do not consider themselves Israelis, since they are not citizens of Israel, so they borrow the metaphor of the builders of the State in order to express their connection to it. But for Israelis living here, support of our own state is simply that - support of our State. And guess what? We don’t even have a word for it, just there’s no such word as “Sudanism” to describe a Sudanese person living in Sudan who, let’s say, pays his taxes and knows the words to the national anthem.

    Zionism - for Israelis - is an anachronism. For Jews in the Diaspora, it is a way of connecting their Jewish identity in a non-Jewish country to what they perceive as their Jewish home even if they don’t live there. For many others, particularly when used in a negative context, it is simply a synonym for “Judaism”, since apparently, even in some contexts in the Arab world, it is not ‘politically correct’ to badmouth Jews, so this can be done under the guise of badmouthing ‘Zionists’ instead.

28. Andrew Brehm on January 7th, 2007 5:47 pm

    Racoon,

    I think we are misunderstanding each other.

    For me, a Bedouin _is_ an Arab, perhaps more so than other Arabs. Bedouins are more traditional and live in the west (in many cases).

    But, for me, they are not “Palestinian Arabs”, as they are nomadic, while a “Palestinian” for me is somebody who lives statically in a region named “Palestine”.

    Conversly “Palestinian” to me does not mean “Arab”. Palestinians are Jews and Arabs and Druze (but not Bedouins). That’s also how the word was used before the local static Arabs claimed it. The current definition of “Palestinian” is racist, because it excludes Jews in an attempt to make all Jews look like foreigners (although the Jewish community in Palestine is much older than the Arab community!).

    In short:

    Palestinians: non-nomadic inhabitants of Palestine.

    Jewish Palestinians: remnants of the original population.

    Arab Palestinians: newcomers of a few hundred years ago (or even within the last hundred years).

    Zionist Jewish Palestinians: newcomers of the last hundred years or so.

    Bedouins (in Palestine): nomadic Arabs (in Palestine)

    Israel: Jewish part of Palestine

    ???: Arab part of Palestine (both Jews and Arabs have the same claim to the pagan word “Palestine”)

    Who owns the land?

    The community that lived there longes? That would be the Jewish communities of Jerusalem (still there) and Hevron (expelled in 1948) and other places.

    The Romans/Greeks that conquered the land and mostly didn’t settle there?

    The Arabs who conquered the land later and did settle there? That would be Palestinian Arabs, Bedouins, and Palestinian/Israeli Druze.

    The Turks?

    The British?

    The Jews that got the land from the British and conquered some more and settled there? That would be current Israel.

    Can anybody tell me why the Arab claim (”We conquered the land a thousand years ago and lost it to the Turks hundreds of years ago.”) would be stronger than the Jewish claim (”We conquered the land half a century ago and didn’t lose it to anybody but occasionally give up some of the land we conquer.)???

29. The Raccoon on January 7th, 2007 8:31 pm

    Andrew - thing is, when in Israel you say Arab you know what you mean, and you don’t mean Bedouin. For many Arabs living in Israel, being called Bedouin is fighting words - and vice versa. Same thing about Druze and Circassians and Edomites and Shomronites. I know that ethinically, the Bedouins are much more Arab than Palestinian Arabs (who are a mish-mash of ethnicities from all over the Middle East and Africa)… but names have power.

    And well… the way I see it, for a Jew to be called Palestinian is an insult. Palestinian (Pleshti) means Invader. Israel, Cana’an, call it what you will - but to call it “Invaderland” is a deliberate insult to the Jews, started by the Romans. I don’t care that it happened 2000 years ago. I don’t care that the original sea-faring Invaders were destroyed thousands of years ago, neither.

    This is not a Roman province. This is not a Greek province. This is not a Ptolemian province. This is not a Babylonian, Assyrian, Fatimid, Ottoman or British province - this is the Land of Israel, free and independant. And I find the name the Arab invaders adopted to be very apt indeed… Invaders.

30. tommy on January 7th, 2007 11:12 pm

    Semantics, shemantics.

31. Nobody on January 7th, 2007 11:27 pm

    The Raccoon Says:
    January 7th, 2007 at 5:25 pm

    There are many deluded or self-hating Israeli Jews (especially in Tel Aviv) who, in their desire to be decadent and anti-semitic Eurotrash, would not define themselves as Zionists… simply because they are morons who forgot how their grandparents and parents died.

    —————-

    who do you call Eurotrash, you maggot ?

    

32. halalhippie on January 7th, 2007 11:42 pm

    Reality check:
    The Bear is Catholic……..check
    A pope shits in the woods……check
    Muslims want all Jews dead……waitaminute….this for real ?

    Geez, Drima, you are one sane and brave guy.

33. howie on January 7th, 2007 11:50 pm

    ST-

    So there you have it…another example about how we Jews conspire and agree on everything in order to keep the Muslim man down.

34. The Atheist Jew on January 8th, 2007 2:42 am

    Great post. I just wrote a piece about Israel that you may like, and I believe it adds things you may not have thought of.

35. southie on January 8th, 2007 3:08 am

    Your analysis is, if not entirely accurate, at least intelligent and well thought out. I think perhaps you still apply definitions to Israel or Israeli actions that you might be unwilling to apply to dozens of other states across the world but you don’t seem to have a violent tendency or desire for the destruction of Israel.

    One correction, if you please: there was always a Jewish presence in the Holy Land. While most Jews were in exile, there were still pockets of them and the tie to that land goes back millennia, well before there were Muslims or Arabs in that region.

36. The Raccoon on January 8th, 2007 3:59 am

    Nobody - LOL

    And hey, I’m a Raccoon, maggots are good protein

37. tsedek on January 8th, 2007 6:56 am

    ~~~~~shit my nephew is in the army right now and his biggest dream is going to trance concerts all around the world…he might invade Bagdad for a good party…but not for Greater Israel.~~~~~

    Hahahaha….:) that’s such a precise description for almost all of the youngsters in the army…

38. Andrew Brehm on January 8th, 2007 9:35 am

    Raccoon,

    I am well aware of what the words mean in Israel. But this here is about Israel, from without.

    You are right about the Bedouins being “more Arab” ethnically but are not called by the name in Israel a lot.

    I also know the source of the word “Palestine”. It was the name the pagan invaders gave to the land to insult the god of Judaism (who is also the god of Islam). I find it most curious that so many “good” Muslims would use the pagan name for the land, especially since that name was adopted by the Romans to insult Allah.

    As for the Jewish presence in the land, I wonder why “Palestine” is not THEIR land but the Arabs’, who came later. How do we know who owns the land? I still think there are several candidates:

    1. The Jews who have lived there longest.

    2. The Greeks or Romans who invaded and lost the land.

    3. The Arabs who invaded and lost the land.

    4. The Turks who invaded and lost the land.

    5. The British who invaded and gave away the land to the Jews.

    6. The Jews who joined group 1 and invaded the land.

    Among all these candidates, how do we know it’s group 3 that owns the land legitimately? Why not group 2 or group 4?

    I believe the strongest two claims are 1 and 6.

    Group 1 because they were there first.

    Group 6 because they invaded last.

39. michael on January 8th, 2007 10:38 am

    Sudanese Thinker:
    I’ve heard about your blog, and finally had a chance to visit. I’m glad I did; it’s interesting reading. You are, indeed, thinking, and that is vital to living in the world.

    I liked reading your thoughts on Zionism. That fact that you, as an Arab Muslim could write that, gives me hope that there are more like you, and that one day, we’ll be able to live in peace…

    As for me, I am a Zionist. I moved from America, to live in Israel with my family, because I wanted my daughters to grow up in a Jewish state, where everything about thier lives can be Jewish.

    I agree with your point that Zionism is a national movement, and I even agree with your point that national movements do have an element of racism to them. The states they create, however, don’t have to have that.

    Israel isn’t perfect in this respect, but the Israeli Arabs are the only ones in the Middle East able to vote their conscience freely and openly, Israeli Arab women have the lowest incidence of death by honor killing in the Middle East, and Israel as a country is the only place in the Middle East that guarantees a free press (look how the Israeli press criticized the gov’t) or freedom of religion (try finding a church, synagogue, or non-Wahabi mosque in Saudi Arabia).

    There is one point on which I must disagree with you, however, and that is the matter of continued Jewish precense in the Land of Israel. Even during the nearly 2000 years of exile, there was a continuous, albeit small, Jewish community here. We never really left, and those who did, never stopped trying to get back.

40. howie on January 8th, 2007 1:21 pm

    Michael-

    It is a great site. S.T. has done some great stuff here.

41. Roman Kalik on January 8th, 2007 2:10 pm

    I consider myself a Zionist, though for me ‘zionism’ is simply another word for patriotism, as the national home is, quite frankly, already here. Do I have expansionist views? Does ‘zionism’ as I view it include expansionary views? Nope. Don’t think it had much of that in the first place either, if one takes the views of Ben-Gurion as well as the other leaders of the Jewish Settlement before the founding of the state into consideration. They *were* willing to accept the UN partition plan, which frankly meant giving up a fair deal of land they bought in other parts of the country, getting a state that was mainly a desert, and borders that weren’t defensible to say the least.

    Zionism was about building a national home in the land that was once known as the kingdoms of Israel and Judea. Did that mean taking those two kingdoms’ ancient borders? Nope. It meant using those old borders as a starting guideline, because the land that was within those ancient borders was the land the Jewish people had a tie to. The Zionist leadership was also willing to compromise and compromise and then compromise some more, without stealing anyone’s land before, during or after.

    Today, Zionism for me means keeping said national home alive. It also means living here, enjoying said life, and trying to make it as good a place as I can.

    Good post, Drima. Glad that you made it.

42. Drima on January 8th, 2007 3:15 pm

    Nobody, thanks for your new comments. It’s much clearer now.

    NC,

    “Many pro-Israel Jewish communal organizations in the Diaspora use the word “Zionist” in their names, as an expression of their connection to that ideology.”

    Now it makes more sense. When I was in Chicago during my last holiday, I passed almost daily by a few Jewish neighbourhoods that had organizations with the word “Zionist” in their names. My brother’s place was very near to a Synagogue… walking distance.
    I have also watched documentaries with Israeli leftists in them claiming they support the ending of the occupation and do so as Zionists who care about Israel’s interests. So ya most probably you’re right

    “Why? On what basis can you disagree with the way in which another person defines himself?”

    I was disagreeing with Nobody about other Israelis’ definition of themselves as Zionists. Not how he defines himself but how others define themselves.

    Anyways, now BAM comes Raccoon with this:

    “For the rest of us - almost everyone - being a Zionist is as obvious as is breathing. The goal has been achieved, and now we have a new goal - to make sure we are not destroyed.”

    Okay so I guess that means you consider yourself to be a Zionist. Right Raccoon?

    Halalhippie, LOL

    Southie & Michael, yes you’re right Jews never completely left but the ones who remained were very few still. Thanks for dropping by

    I think NC summed it up pretty well with this:

    “For Israelis, Zionism was about building a Jewish home in Israel (or wherever the world would let them build it), not about supporting it, since at that time, there was no State to support - it didn’t exist yet. For non-Israelis, Zionism is about supporting that state, but primarily because they do not consider themselves Israelis, since they are not citizens of Israel, so they borrow the metaphor of the builders of the State in order to express their connection to it.”

    Again thanks for the feedback. I’ve tried reading books but most have been nothing but emotionally charged garbage. I was thinking of getting something from Amazong but then again, there are thousands of books. Blogging is more powerful and straight forward especially when you lack time. Plus who the hell needs a long one sided pro/anti book about Zionism when I’ve got a diverse bunch of Jews like you guys (and girls ehm ehm Tse)?

43. Drima on January 8th, 2007 4:15 pm

    One thing is certain for sure… different Israelis or Jews will have their own interpretation of Zionism.

44. Andrew Brehm on January 8th, 2007 6:58 pm

    “We can continue wishing for this to happen”

    This might be a relevant point:

    Would that be good and for whom?

    Palestinian Jews, including the old community, the newcomers from the west, and those Jews that fled other Arab countries, would have died. (And people would again wonder where the Jews always take the number of six millions.)

    Palestinian Druze would be treated like a minority in an Arab country (and we know what that means).

    Bedouins would be treated with the respect Palestinian Arabs feel they should be awarded. (And that is very probably bad.)

    Palestinian Christians in all of Palestine would be treated like Palestinian Christians are treated in PA territories today.

    And Palestinian Arab Muslims would live in a dictatorship.

    Syria would probably see Palestine as another playground, like Lebanon, and Palestine would quickly become a part of a Ba’ath empire (and a proxy for Iran, like Syria).

    Lebanon would fall to Syria when Israel is no longer a threat to Syrian expansionism.

    Some on the left would continue to claim that Israel’s expansionism is to blame for the genocide.

    Most people would, again, agree that the world failed to prevent the murder of six million people, and then would found a replacement for the UN that will oversee the next such genocide 50 years later.

    And Allah, should He exist and should the Quran be true, will be VERY angry that the holy land will be named by the pagan name given by the enemies of monotheism, and that His alleged followers failed to follow the Quran regarding ownership of the holy land. (The Quran reminds Muslims of the allegedly true story of G-d giving the holy land to the people of Israel via Moses the prophet.)

    And many Arab countries, now threatened by Iran and an ever-expanding Syria will suddenly realise, maybe, why Allah wanted the Jews to be in that land.

    The region will become an economic wasteland as the Jewish makers of microchips and irrigation systems will be bones in the desert and civil war between Christian and Muslim, Druze and Arab, Shiite and Sunni, Syrian nationalists and Saudi fundamentalists, Hizbullah and Al-Qaeda, and between Bedouins of different tribes, presumably, will break out and destroy the region for good.

    After that and while it happens the Kurds will be attacked again, and the whole thing will end with a war between a greater Syria and Turkey (namely when Turkey gets sick of it and fears for its Kurdish and small Arab territories).

    Or what exactly would the outcome of an Arab victory be?

    What is usually the outcome of an Arab victory these days?

45. Nobody on January 8th, 2007 7:04 pm

    One thing is certain for sure… different Israelis or Jews will have their own interpretation of Zionism.

    this is because as i told you it became a pretty virtual concept… what israelis/jews may call zionism is called patriotism/national sentiments by other nations…

    but if you thought that zionism is something defined in terms of borders or territory , its nothing like this… the fathers of zionism considered uganda very seriously at the beginning …

    anyway i can promise you that hardly one poster here ever read a book by herzel (shows you how relevant zionism is)… so most people here are just improvising on this concept …

46. Nobody on January 8th, 2007 7:24 pm

    also its not an ideology like comminism, nazism or even the Baath… its just an idea that the jews should have a country … whatever herzel and others wrote in addition to this is just their musings on the best way to achieve it … it does not have a prescriptive value

47. Howie on January 8th, 2007 9:14 pm

    But you guys are not addressing religious Zionism…only political.

    Religious Zionism would plant Jews in the land of Israel (borders debatable) with Jerusalem as the center of worship…

48. Nobody on January 9th, 2007 12:47 am

    But you guys are not addressing religious Zionism…only political.

    you probably mean secular zionism .. this is true .. but, as one poster, i think , already mentioned here, israel was created and dominated by secular zionism which was basically a semi communist movement with national aspirations .. religious zionism was of little significance…

    frankly i don’t even know what its about .. you know who are their ideologues ? they have books with a doctrine? or they too are improvizing on-the-fly?

49. howie on January 9th, 2007 1:13 am

    Nobody-

    Political Zionism was the certainly the thrust of Zionism for many years…

    However…are you serious…you don’t know what religious Zionism is based on or did I misread what you wrote.

    Just in case though, in answer to your question…”hey have books with a doctrine?”…one is called the Bible

50. Nobody on January 9th, 2007 1:38 am

    However…are you serious…you don’t know what religious Zionism is based on or did I misread what you wrote.

    Just in case though, in answer to your question…”hey have books with a doctrine?”…one is called the Bible

    this is nonsense howie … we have hundreds of thousands of anti zionist orthodox whose book is the bible … unless religious zionists have their own version of herzel, who developed a doctrine for them, they too are a bunch of amateurs … but from my understanding of their mentality they sure have a rabbi or a few on whom they base their ideas

51. Drima on January 9th, 2007 2:12 am

    

52. howie on January 9th, 2007 5:19 am

    Nobody-

    I would really like to understand your point…I am not being sarcastic…but I am not sure what you are trying to say…

    Jews were religiously attached to the land from the time God called on Abraham to live Iraq and head on west. The Bible is filled with references of God giving the land to the Jews…even the Qur’an notes this. The prophesies of Isiah, Ezikiel etc. all point to the Jews returning from exile “on eagles wings” for example (some belief this to be a reference to planes and jets that have carried thousands back).

    Now is all this a fairlytale…might be. But then Christianity and Islam must, de facto, also be fairytales. But this is the heart of religious Zionism…that God’s intent is for the Jews to have that land (again…borders not specified clearly)…

    In terms of his is “nonsense howie … we have hundreds of thousands of anti zionist orthodox whose book is the bible …”

    No…we have a very small minority of orthodox like Neturei Kata who are anti-zionist…which is their perogative…but they would still be religious Zionists, only they believe we are supposed to wait for the Messiah before we all settle in Israel (borders not specified).

    Political Zionism…was not about racism…that is just BS…it was primarily about; “we have tried living with others for 2,000 years and has been a tragic disaster…best we take care of ourselves”. Hertzl would have taken Arizona and almost got Uganda (they we would have had Idi Amin on our asses I guess)..

53. michael on January 9th, 2007 7:17 am

    Drima:
    “Jews never completely left but the ones who remained were very few still. ”

    A true observation, but remember: those of us who left never lost the connection to the land. Our religious cycle of holidays follows the patterns of the seasons here (something I never vicerally understood until my Aliyah), a common phrase in many holiday services is l’shana haba’a b’yerushaliyim, “next year in Jerusalem.” The 137th psalm (and many others) lament the fall of Jerusalem and the loss of the land….

    Longing for Israel, and the desire to build a home here (the key elements of Zionism, really) have always been a part of the Jewish mind.

    Roman, several posts back, also made a good point: The state is here. At this point, Zionism is akin to patriotism. I agree with him: it does not need to be expansionist. There is a lot of work still to do in modern Israel to complete the Zionist ideal. We don’t need more land; we just need to keep our connection to what we have.

54. Roman Kalik on January 9th, 2007 7:44 am

    “No…we have a very small minority of orthodox like Neturei Kata who are anti-zionist…which is their perogative…but they would still be religious Zionists, only they believe we are supposed to wait for the Messiah before we all settle in Israel (borders not specified).”

    Indeed. Even the Satmar Hassidical group (from which most if not all Neturei Karta emerged, by the way) views the Zionist movement as bad not because it settled in Israel, but rather because they have/had a predominantly secular nucleus. They blame them for ‘ruining the generation’ as it were.

    At this point… Suffice to say that even Satmar is giving Neturei Karta the cold shoulder. They’re not accepted in synagogues abroad, and there’s debate if they should be kicked out altogether to the point of not being allowed burial in a Jewish graveyard. Their arrogance and self-righteousness was getting on the nerves of just about everyone in the various Jewish religious communities as it is, and as those tend to be quite self-righteous as it is this says quite a bit about Neturei-Karta. There’s only so many “your rabbis are traitors to the faith for accepting the Evil Zionists” pamphlets one can stomach.

    “Hertzl would have taken Arizona and almost got Uganda (they we would have had Idi Amin on our asses I guess)..”

    Hehe, so true. I remember reading on the arguments Ech’ad Ha’am had on this issue. It was he and others like him who totally objected to the whole ‘let’s go to Uganda’ thing. While Ech’ad Ha’am wasn’t the prime example of religious Zionism, he *was* the one who paved the way for it.

55. nominally challenged on January 9th, 2007 7:44 am

    Howie, the Neturei Karta are not the only ultra-orthodox anti-Zionists. Meah Shearim, for instance, is not solely Neturei Karta territory by any means, and I’m sure I don’t need to tell you about the “Torah clocks” there that don’t keep “Zionist” Israeli daylight savings time. Nor, I’m sure, do you need to hear the stories about ultra-orthodox soldiers being harassed by their neighbors for daring to join the Zionist army. These are large groups of people who should by no means be underestimated.

    Once again, I find myself agreeing with Nobody, with the exception that, Nobody, you cannot ignore Rav Kook and the Bnei Akiva movement - the foundations of modern religious Zionist (and the modern orthodox movement to which, I’ll let myself presume, Howie subscribes). It’s not quite as vague as you make it out, because the question of whether a religious person could accept return to Israel without evidence of a Messiah was a very important question in its time - and much was indeed written about it in modern times, without needing to go back to the Bible.

56. Nobody on January 9th, 2007 9:37 am

    Indeed. Even the Satmar Hassidical group (from which most if not all Neturei Karta emerged, by the way) views the Zionist movement as bad not because it settled in Israel, but rather because they have/had a predominantly secular nucleus. They blame them for ‘ruining the generation’ as it were.

    RC

    i dont know where you get your information from but its nothing like satmars themselves say when interviewed on the jerusalem post.. the point they make is exactly as NC describes it .. it has nothing to do with secularism …

    neturei karta are indeed a tiny minority … among the anti zionist orthodox who number hundreds of thousands .. and satmars are as anti zionist as before .. they threw NK’s out of their sinagogues because of the anti holocaust forum .. not because they became zionists…

    the last time i read one of the satmars leaders interviewed he explained it simply - that they dont know what to do with israel.. since any attempt to dismantle the state will end up with the arabs/muslims slaughtering the jews the same way they slaughter each other in iraq/sudan … but support the state they cannot because the very idea of such a state is a herecy..

    NC

    i did not say that religious zionism is vague.. i said that i dont know much about it .. specifically from drima may be interested in is a question if they have a doctrine elaborated on issues like borders, arab question and stuff like this .. if you know somethihng, then post it here

    but anyway ,drima, it has never been the mainstream of zionism.. its a fringe..

57. The Usual Suspect on January 9th, 2007 12:53 pm

    Great post Drima
    I’ve just spent a while reading your post and all the enlightening comments. But there is something that Andrew said which I’d like to ask about:

    “Judaism as an ethnic group is non-exclusive. Absolutely anybody can become a Jew”

    In Australia we have the Racial Discrimination Act which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race. Following a precedent set in the UK, it was established that the Jewish are a racial group and hence are protected by this Act- they have a means of legal recourse for acts of vilification, aggression and hostility against individual Jews or Jews as a group. The Act does not cover religion which means that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Wicken, etc etc do not have legal recourse. There have been attempts following acts of aggression and vilification mostly aimed at Muslims but also at other religious groups (most often because they were mistaken for Muslims) after 9/11 to change the Act to include religion. I have also mounted several campaigns but since the conservative Liberal Party was elected, any review of the Act to include religion has been shelved.

    So I have a question:
    If Judaism is not ethnically exclusive how is it that Jews can be recognised as a racial group. I’m interested in the basis of this and also if all Jews agree that Jews are a racial group and should be considered as such. I’ve always thought that Judaism welcomed many different ethnicities. After all there are Ethiopian Jews, European Jews, Egyptian Jews, Australian Jews- all, I would have thought, of different races as well.

    Can someone clarify/comment for me please?

58. Andrew Brehm on January 9th, 2007 1:01 pm

    “Can someone clarify/comment for me please?”

    Jews are a racial group. Judaism, the religion, however does dictate that Jews, the people, have a process that allows strangers to become part of the people.

    Including religion in the category of ethnicity is a mistake, I think, because the difference between ethnicity and religion is that religion is ENTIRELY based on what a person believes and does, while ethnicity includes an element of what a person IS without his doing.

    Differences between what are ARE should be of no consequence and thus we have laws that force you to ignore such differences (ideally). But differences between what people DO are of consequence.

    Hence Judaism is an ethnicity, but since people can join it at will, is it a non-exclusive ethnicity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-exclusive_ethnic_group

59. Andrew Brehm on January 9th, 2007 1:03 pm

    One point of clarification though.

    The word “race” is used for many things. Technically the Jews are NOT a race, but they are an ethnicity.

    Discrimination against certain races is wrong, discrimination against certain ethnicities is also wrong.

    Discrimination against certain behaviours is completely acceptable (and it is what the law does).

    Discrimination against certain beliefs is in between the two. Some countries say it’s OK, some (very few) say it is not, most countries insist that it is very necessary indeed.

60. Roman Kalik on January 9th, 2007 1:17 pm

    “i dont know where you get your information from but its nothing like satmars themselves say when interviewed on the jerusalem post..”

    A combination of Haredi friends and Haredi newspapers. Try reading those that aren’t identified with a party sometime.

    Nor did I say that Satmar are Zionist. Satmar view the ‘Zionist state’ as anathema because they see it as an attempt to supersede the Torah as a central pillar in Judaism. Have you ever listened to any of their sermons? I did. They blame the Zionists for destroying the generation, for distancing the youth from God. Which is why they would have accepted a *religious* state with ease. Their objection is not to the state in itself but rather to its perceived attempt to supersede religion.

    But the mainstream Haredi society… When it comes to Zionism… Simply doesn’t give a damn one way or the other. They don’t like the label ‘Zionism’ much on the one hand, but they still live here on the other. And no matter how many Haredi communities attempt to separate themselves, it doesn’t work. Except maybe in places like Me’a She’arim. And that’s a mess of its very own. The self-proclaimed Zealots of Jerusalem are only marginally better than Neturei-Karta.

    “they threw NK’s out of their sinagogues because of the anti holocaust forum .. not because they became zionists…”

    Yep. Only it wasn’t the only reason, as they’ve been on the fringes of acceptance for years now due to various acts over the years. Their local communities were already kicking them out, just without anything official. Now it’s official.

61. howie on January 9th, 2007 2:45 pm

    RK-

    Well explained…

    NC and Nobody-

    “Once again, I find myself agreeing with Nobody, with the exception that, Nobody, you cannot ignore Rav Kook and the Bnei Akiva movement”

    Think again guys….Religious Zionists would include anybody connected to the Chasidic movement, Chabad being a prime example…and just about EVERY traditional religious Sephardic I have ever met. This is a huge population of religious (often quite moderate) Jews. Mea Shearim and Beni-Brak are the gross exception and you are only referring to certain “mitnagdim”.

    Oh…and I don’t even wear a kippah…not even a knitted one (except when praying etc.)

62. howie on January 9th, 2007 2:53 pm

    Whose a Jew? Heh heh

    We are not a race (race is Asian, “Negroid” White). We are NOT an ethnic group…we have dozens of ethnic groups amongst us.

    We are a religion…but you can be a Jew without being religious and you can be a Jew and a member or any race (white, Asian, Negroid etc).

    This is a question that is still being argued…I think we have always been a People or nation, but until 48…a People or Nation without a country.

63. Nobody on January 9th, 2007 3:18 pm

    ok .. roman … let’s check the source .. the rabbi himself ..

    this is from wikpedia … if you want me to provide you with links to interviews with contemporary leaders of the satmars, just tell me

    pay attention - the word ’secular’ is not even mentioned here

    The Satmar’s vehement position against Zionism was refined and officially formulated by Joel Teitelbaum, though it did not originate with him. Before World War II most Hasidic rabbis, as well as many other prominent Orthodox leaders (including Rabbi Joel’s father, Rabbi Chananyah Yom Tov Lipa), believed that God had promised to return the Jewish people to the land of Israel by means of the actions of the Jewish Messiah who would be sent by God, and that any activity on behalf of the Jews themselves to create or instigate this redemption would be punished. Instead of accepting benefits from the State of Israel, Rabbi Joel instead encouraged his followers to form self-sufficient communities in the Holy Land. He recorded a wide scope of his views on Zionism in his scholarly work Vayoel Moshe, published in 1958. Shortly before his passing he set up the Keren Hatzalah fund to help those Jews who refrain from taking monetary support from the Israeli Government.

    Although it was certainly not the only reason for his opinion, one of the core citations from classical Judaic sources cited by Teitelbaum for his opposition to modern Zionism was that of the Three Oaths. This important teaching is from the Talmud in tractate Kethuboth 111a, which discusses a passage from the Song of Songs in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) in which God made the Israelites promise “to wait for Him before arousing his love”:

    “King Solomon in Song of Songs thrice adjured the ‘daughters of Jerusalem’ not to arouse or bestir the love until it is ready.’ The Talmud explains that we are bound by three strong oaths not to ascend to the Holy Land as a group using force, not to rebel against the governments of countries in which we live, and not by our sins, to prolong the coming of moshiach; as is written in Tractate Kesubos 111a .” [19]

    A variant interpretation of the three oaths has the third oath being that God would not allow the non-Jewish world to “excessively” persecute the Jews. Rabbi Teitelbaum expressly held that the oaths were not dependent upon one another. [20] In VaYoel Moshe Teitelbaum explicitly declared that, from the time of the very inception of the Zionist movement in the 1890’s, the Zionists violated the three oaths, and thereby caused the Holocaust, as well as all wars, terrorism, and violence in modern Israel, and most anti-Semitism around the world since that time, as a result: “…it has been these Zionist groups that have attracted the Jewish people and have violated the Oath against establishing a Jewish entity before the arrival of the Messiah. It is because of the Zionists that six million Jews were killed.”[21]

64. Roman Kalik on January 9th, 2007 3:28 pm

    “Think again guys….Religious Zionists would include anybody connected to the Chasidic movement”

    True as a rule, not true in Satmar’s case, but they’re really an exception to this rule.

    And I find that Bnei-Brak isn’t much of an anti-Zionist stronghold. They might not be Zionist, but they’re not anti-Zionist either. Bnei-Brak is simply too big, it isn’t an enclosed mini-state like Me’a-She’arim. Plus, Bnei-Brak doesn’t have a pure Haredi population. They’re the majority yes, but not as big a majority as some might think.

65. The Raccoon on January 9th, 2007 3:56 pm

    Howie - uhm. Jews are an ethnicity. Genetics prove as much. There are a few strands of Jewish genes, united by Cohen/Levi genetic traits. The strands became increasingly different in the past two thousand years, but the common genetics are obvious. See here, for instance. Jews, however, were not only always divided genetically (originally in the 12 clans, later by location in Diaspora) but are also, as Andrew pointed out, a non-exclusive ethnicity. The latter ensured greater