Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was Albert Einstein correct, re: Israel?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 01:34 AM
Original message
Poll question: Was Albert Einstein correct, re: Israel?
He was offered the Presidency of Israel, but declined. This quote explains why.

"My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain -- especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state."

Albert Einstein


Google for more if you like http://www.google.com/search?q=Einstein+Israel



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. I can't support this thread
I don't believe that debating Israel's creation as a historical point is off limits. Nor do I feel that debate over Israel's status as a "Jewish" state vs. "a state for all its citizens" should be off limits, either.

But there's a time and place for everything, and other questions are purely irrelevant to the main debate occurring right now. The first question, in particular, is purely academic. Whatever you think should have happened in 1948, the fact is that Israel DOES exist and is both de jure and de facto a Jewish state culturally and politically. Debating Israel's existence at this point is not only irrelevant, it is unfair; at a certain point, nations acquire legitimacy by the fact that they have been long-established.

Nor does debating Israel's existence further the cause of peace at this point. Israel is well-established. The goal of Israelis, of their neighbors, and the world ought to be the furthering of peace based on what is there, not what one might wish had been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truthiness Inspector Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Great answer, and I agree
Nations are created all the time, but Israel...that is the ONE that never should have happened. Disgusting. Arguing that Israel should not exist is flame-bait and a whole lot more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. You're entitled to that opinion. I wish I'd been a plumber.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tech3149 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Churchill was warned of the consequenses
of creating a Jewish state that took the land away from those that lived there. It's been a few years since I read it, but it was pretty accurate in predicting the trouble we've seen since 1948. I'm not the best researcher out there and haven't found the original document. Hopefully someone else can carry on from this tidbit. The I/P conflict will never be resolved until the full history is known and understood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymar64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
43. It does not have the right to call itself a democracy
especially when a huge portion of it's inhabitants have little or no rights under an apartheid-like system. It must also acknowledge that it's character as a jewish state makes it a de facto and de jure theocracy, just like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. It's a militant theocracy.
Exactly what they're building here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. well, you don't have to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
20. Good points, Liberalpragmatist. Israel and its supporters (and count me
Edited on Wed Jul-26-06 04:26 AM by Peace Patriot
among them) are nervous enough about Israel's vulnerability, to pose this existential question once again. Nor should we question the Palestinians right to statehood (they clearly want one), nor the Iraqis' sovereignty (Iraq being a relatively recently created state), nor Lebanon's right to security from attack. All questions of sovereignty should be up to the PEOPLE who live there NOW. Let the past bury the past!

However, Einstein's quote is useful for analyzing the problems that Israel has encountered in BEING a state, especially in that particular location, the ancestral home of the Jews, but also the ancestral home of other racial/religious groups, mostly Arabs and Islamics. These problems have not gone away, and have in fact gotten worse. Can they be solved? I was thinking about this the other day--the matter of basing a state on religion and race, as opposed to a NEUTRAL secular state, which favors no particular race or religion--and what came to mind was the model of ancient Alexandria. A city of learning. A city of tolerance. A city founded on the principles of openness, widespread education and multi-culturalism. One might call it the first secular state--created by the high-minded Ptolemaic kings (Alexander the Great's former generals). Alexandria was indeed famous for its tolerance. Jews were entirely safe there--and were among the famous scholars and "book gatherers" at the Alexandria Library. When the Roman Empire's legal structure (and protection of Alexandria) crumbled, in the early 5th century AD, and a narrow group of "patriarchal" powermongers took over the Christian religion, the very first people to suffer were the Jews, whose property was confiscated in pogroms, and who were driven out of the city. Pagans were next; then all the great variety of Christian sects (many of which were based on the earliest traditions of egalitarianism.) Several hundred years of scholarship and a long tradition of tolerance were destroyed. (You want to know where Christianity went wrong? Look up the history of Alexandria from about 480 to 550 AD. What a miserable tale!) Anyway, although Israel is a democracy with civil rights, it is a Jewish state, and a militant one, which gives preference to one race and religion. And that AUTOMATICALLY creates a sense of injury in those who are excluded.

I'm thinking of what Israel has become, in contrast to what it MIGHT HAVE become--and possibly this criticism could contain a clue to or hint of a solution. Israel has been beset by Arab/Islamic resentment from the beginning, which has taken militant form. And Israel itself has gone down a very militaristic road, PARTLY in response to Arab/Islamic reaction, but also from within Israel and the Jewish community, the result not just of the Holocaust but of a thousand years of brutal oppression mostly by European Christians. This double-whammy of resentment, fear, and militarism, and a constantly aggravated sense of injury on BOTH sides, has resulted, today, in several extremely unfortunate developments, one of them being Israel's alliance with the fascist Bush junta. Israel could not have a more unreliable and untrustworthy ally--nor one that is more despised throughout the world, including by Americans themselves*. And this attack on Lebanon is the worst thing that Israel could have done--going along with Plan B of the Bushite/NeoCon "Project for a New American Century" (get Israel to do it). Israel's rightwing leadership of course has fostered this plan, and is being used willingly by the Bushites. But the plan is insane on its face. There is simply no way that the US/Israel can "occupy" the entire Middle East. (I mean, LOOK at Iraq!). This is a Hundred Years War all over again, but this time--THIS TIME--it's at the risk of nuclear warfare, with only one limited nuclear exchange capable of destroying the planet's atmosphere once and for all. (Carl Sagan writes about what even a limited nuclear exchange will do to our atmosphere in his book, "The Cold and the Dark.")

The Bush junta is behind all this. It holds the purse strings. And Israelis' fears, and Jewish fears, and the rightwing penchant for solving all things with violence, have all been played upon, with war profiteers also playing a big role.

But this is not what Jews should be doing. Killing people. Living in a state of war for another hundred years (if humanity and the planet survive it). There is something so wrong about this. And I could hear it in the voices of three young Israelis (young tech workers) who were interviewed on the radio the other day. They were in despair about Israel's survival--this, after a half century of constant strife. They supported the attack on Lebanon, but they sounded...I don't know...trapped? Like all people whose leaders have taken them to war--especially people in a tiny, vulnerable country like Israel--they sounded like they HAD to support this. Support this or die, seemed to be their attitude. And they thought it would go on for a hundred years. That's what they said. They would never know peace in their lifetimes, nor would their children.

How to back out of here--endless war, or FINAL war--and go down a better road? Is it possible? And could Alexandria be the model? A secular state that severs itself from the Jewish religion and Jews as a race--in a First Amendment sort of way--and re-forms itself into a place of tolerance and learning, and multiculturalism? John Lennon urged us to "Imagine." So I'm imagining. He said, "Dream." So I'm dreaming. Could people DO this--abandon fear? Could Jews give up Israel as a military stronghold against adversity, and, like the Ptolemaic kings, consciously design something better--and could that be the miracle that transforms the Middle East into the most attractive place on earth, instead of the most dangerous?

Back in 1954, the US and Israel made a horrible mistake in destroying Iran's new democracy--and installing the Shah of Iran, who inflicted the Iranian people with 25 years of torture and oppression. How different things would be now, for Israel, if it had broken with that vile western policy and had instead fostered Iranian democracy! Now Iran is so paranoid that its mullahs are likely to lead it right into a war with Israel and the US. Iran will lose, but Israel and the US won't win. It will be continual "asymmetric war," as they say. A la Vietnam. Is this to be the fate of the great Persian culture--vicious religious/racial warfare, ad infinitum, until death do us all part? Why not, instead, apologize to the Iranian people for destroying their democracy, ask for a clean slate--amnesty, forgiveness--and propose a New Alexandria, where Israeli and Persian traditions can meet and mingle?

The world would fall on its knees for joy! And Israel would suddenly have hundreds of new allies, all around the world, every one of them a better friend to Israel than the Bush Cartel.

Well, here I am, reconstructing Israel--in my imagination--when I can't even get my own government to count my vote. I'm not Jewish, but I do have chutzpah!

My thoughts, for what they are worth. Dreaming the dream.


----------


*(65% to 70% of Americans have opposed the Bush junta and all of its policies, foreign and domestic, for more than two years now. Bush began his precipitous fall probably a year before the 2004 election, but certainly on the day of his second inauguration, when his approval stood at 49%! --the lowest ever for a supposedly re-elected second term president. And it has never recovered, and has only sunk further down. It's been in the mid-30s for over a year. He has no mandate, and yet acts like a dictator. And clearly, without the Supreme Court in '00, and Diebold and ES&S in '04, he would not be president. He and his regime cannot win legitimate, transparent, verifiable elections. (That's why they put an illegitimate, non-transparent, unverifiable, corporate-controlled electronic voting system in place.) And this is Israel's only ally in the world--a corrupt fascist regime, whose crimes are not the result of fear--as Israel's are--but are instead cold-blooded, greedy, calculations of profit. Israel's rightwing leadership has made a bad bargain with these unworthy and treacherous people, and Israel needs to extricate itself from their clutches, and make a bold, dramatic, creative initiative toward a Middle East transformed by learning, generosity and compassion, not by more bloodshed.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #20
39. Quite frankly, I agree in a lot of ways
I'm well aware of the contradictions of being an explicitly Jewish state while also trying to be a "democratic" state. And I've often wondered if a one-state solution is ultimately the better outcome than a two-state solution.

And the history of Zionism includes many who felt the aim was to create a Jewish "homeland" as opposed to an explicitly Jewish state.

Where I take issue is the appropriateness of this debate at this time and place. I think discussion of a one-state solution shouldn't be off limits as a proposed solution (I still tend to think a two-state solution is better, as a one-state solution may work in theory but in fact could be much more difficult), but I do think asking whether Israel had a right to be created in the first place is a divisive topic for this time and place. It's insensitive. If we want to narrow the ground among those of opposing views here, we ought not be driving each other apart by questioning the legitimacy of one side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. asking fundamental questions is essential to finding the best solutions
our approach to this is like a doctor who gives you a cough drop when you have lung cancer. The immediate symptom is gone, but at some point in the future, you will drop dead.

This question also strikes at the heart of how Arabs and most of the rest of the world see Israel. Because of the Holocaust, Jews cultural closeness to us compared to Muslims, and frankly, the similarity of our history of displacing native peoples, we have a soft spot for Israel.

But we should treat them no differently than any other ally or major recipient of our aid. A similar problem to Israel/Palestine was solved on Cyprus with international peacekeepers, yet Israel refused to go along with this solution until just this week--they are now willing to have them on their border with Lebanon.

I think of the Israelis as near relatives to Americans, like cousins or even brothers. But if your brother develops a drinking problem or starts to beat his wife or tries to pick fights at the neighborhood biker bar, you don't really love him if you don't correct him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. E=mc² wasn't the only reason he was regarded as a genius,
A sense of humor is also an attribute of intelligence.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
44. Einstein was
a cutie! And he had Wild hair!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wull who cares what HE thinks, anyway? He was one of them
SCIENTISTS, and everybody knows them scientists are up to no good.

Stem cells. Artificial babies. People havin' sex with apes. It's all them scientists' evil-doin' is what it is.

We oughta lock 'em all up like they did that smarty-pants Galileo feller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 01:52 AM
Response to Original message
5. didn't Samuel warn us about this?
"you want a (temporal) king, but I don't think you'll like him very much..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. Other.
I cannot judge his understanding of "the essential nature of Judaism" as being correct or incorrect; it is correct for him, as it is his understanding of it. However, others may have a different understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. His response would be more indicative of an Orthodox stance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. I doubt it.
His parents were non-observant secular Jews. His faith was built upon his own personal path rather than an established sectarian school. At most, I'd characterize him as an early reconstructionist, influenced by the Kabbalistic (spiritual) tradition more than the Rabbinical tradition. He expressed his highest allegiance to "Spinoza's God," not the ever-watchful and dabbling God. (Spinoza was hardly a traditionalist - more a pantheist.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I think you misunderstood me.
I wasn't saying he was an Orthodox, but his stance was one that the Orthodox community is known to have, especially before the creation of Israel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
9. I think if the human race could all be as enlightened as Einstein was re:
nationalism, borders, armies, and temporal power, we wouldn't have -or need- ANY "states".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
10. Is it possible to disagree w/Israel & still not deny its right to exist?
Israelis, as much as any other distinct nation of people, has a right to self determination. It's possible to say Israel is handling this situation wrong and still think Israel deserves American support and protection. They have a bad set of leaders right now. But that hardly makes them unique in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Of course. Did I say I thought Israel had no right to exist?
or defend itself in the 2006 reality that we have now?

I'm pretty sure I didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #12
49. No, but you certainly did ask that very question, which I answered.
You quoted Einstein saying "the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state." Then you asked if Einstein was correct. How is that NOT asking whether there should be an Israel? How is that not a direct rhetorical challenge the legitimacy of the world's sole Jewish state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 02:42 AM
Response to Original message
13. Einstein's reputation as one of the greatest minds to ever live . . .
is well deserved . . . his insights into human nature rival his scientific achievements . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 03:32 AM
Response to Original message
17. This is nutty.
I did google more: Einstein supported Israel with his name and financially. There's tons of evidence to support that.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/berlin-isaiah_einstein-and-israel.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I think you missed the point.
Edited on Wed Jul-26-06 03:41 AM by Behind the Aegis
Actually, considering your level of intelligent discourse, I think you do understand what is "going on" with this "poll."

And, no, I am not being sarcastic.

On edit: grammatical error
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. ymmv
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Your mileage may vary. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. ahh..thank you...
...I think I know where the mileage will take me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BooScout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 03:36 AM
Response to Original message
18. Out of curiosity.......
Does any other mainstream religion have a country to call their 'homeland'? It's a serious question and not flamebait btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. In a sense, you could say India is the 'homeland' for Hinduism
And in a similar way, at around the same time, borders were drawn up to divide off areas with different religious majorities to form it. It also has been a region of dispute and war, though, relative to the size of populations involved, not as much as around Israel.

Though India is not 'officially' Hindu. Nepal is the only state where Hinduism is the official religion.

Technically, the Vatican is the 'homeland' for Roman Catholicism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BooScout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. Thanks Muriel....
It was too early for me to think when I posted and I wondered if other areas of the world had similar examples and what the consequences were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #21
29. Indians take pride in being religiously diverse, which is partly why they
don't want to let Muslim Kashmir go.

Like us, there is an overwhelming majority religion, but I don't know if they are accorded any special privileges because of that religion, or if Sikhs, Muslims and others are barred from certain government positions because it would pose an existential threat to the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. No special privileges, as far as I know
and the current PM is a Sikh. The main opposition party is a Hindu nationalist party, and when they were in power, some thought they showed a bias against Islam, and towards Hinduism (perhaps comparable to the Republican bias towards Christianity, especially evangelical Protestant Christianity, shown by 'faith initiatives' and so on). There was a long dispute, still unresolved as far as I know, about knocking down an old mosque, and building a Hindu temple in its place, which the BJP seemed to use as a symbol of the Hindu ascendancy they were trying to achieve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Sikh PM? that's like a Muslim or Jew being president of the United States
very impressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. Ireland. But you have to understand that their Catholicism is half
Pagan (Druid/Keltic). That's the 'homeland' part. (Irish blood here. I know what of I speak.)

And then there's Saudi Arabia.

And Italy had a monopoly on popes for a long time. A lot of Catholics around the world use "Rome" as a substitute phrase for "the Church hierarchy." ("Rome" says this, or "Rome" says that.) (Interestingly, it was the Irish, who were never conquered by the Roman Empire, who developed a quite different version of the Christian religion, called Pelagianism--much closer to the egalitarian roots of the real Christianity--but then they got 'conquered,' quite late, by missionaries from Rome, who stamped out this gentler, half-Pagan religion...or thought they did.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. good point. Saudi and many other Muslim countries are like Israel--
you're Muslim or you don't count.

I can think of one ironic exception though. Saddam Hussein's envoy to the US, Tarik Aziz, was a Christian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Really?
How many of those Muslim countries have Jewish representatives in their governments? I know Saudi Arabia doesn't, they don't allow Jews in their country!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #32
42. Should morality be graded on a curve? Saudi is just about the worst
human rights abuser in the world.

If Israel treated Palestinians much worse and took away half the rights of Jews, they would still be better than Saudi. Would that make those changes right?

Also, does the fact that some of your neighbors are backwards give you the right to kill others?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. Israel
as I pointed out in another thread, is about as much of a theocracy as Norway. There are over a million Israeli Arabs. They suffer from discrimination, just as certain minorities do in this country but it is not codified within the law. In Israel, people are free to practice any religion they wish. Not true in Saudi Arabia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Can Arabs join the Israeli military? Do Palestinians have the right of
return like Jews?

How about if a Palestinian from the West Bank decided to come to Israel and be a 'settler'?

Isn't that a little more discrimination than just about anybody faces here, even Muslims after 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Yes
Israeli Arabs can join the military- and do. No, Palestinians don't have the right of return. Other countries have similar laws to the Israeli right of return enabling people to gain citizenry because of ancestry. The occupation is wrong, but that's not the point in discussing whether Israel is a theocracy akin to Saudi Arabia or other states where religion is the law. Look, there's lot of information out there- fact based information. Some things you might learn are that Israeli Arabs sit in the Knesset, attend Universities, and are part of the fabric of life, in the way no religious or ethnic minority is in Saudi Arabia. Why is that so difficult to acknowledge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Saudi is often in the top couple of human rights violators in the world
It is commendable to be better than them, but that is grading on a curve.

That's like the Bushies claiming we didn't torture people quite as badly as Saddam did.

I would think most Israelis would prefer to be compared their cultural peers in Western Europe.

I would not necessarily advocate for Palestinian right of return to Israel, but the fact that the right is determined by religion and ethnicity rather than how recent someone's residency and family history is there is troubling.

I oppose even laws that have an unintentional effect like that, such as the proposal that children of illegal immigrants born in the US no longer getting automatic US citizenship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-27-06 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #33
50. I don't think of Israel as a theocracy. I described it as a democracy
with civil rights. But there is simply no question that Israel is associated with Judaism and is a Jewish state. It was founded by and for Jews, and Jews are preferred. To say that it is "as much of a theocracy as Norway" is very inaccurate. Norway forbids racial and religious intolerance and existential bias of any kind, by law and by practice. It is an extraordinarily egalitarian place, one of the best and most progressive democracies on earth. True, they don't have a big racial or religious problem. Their society doesn't have a lot of cultural variety. But I can't help but think that, whatever intolerance there might have been (anti-Catholicism might have been a factor at one time; and I'm not sure what's happening there now, as to immigration), is solved by Norwegian economic and social policy which basically says, "there is enough for all." It is a mixed socialist/capitalist economy, with a strong social justice component. I hate their whaling. I think they are killing sentient beings. But they see it rather like some Native Americans tribes do--as such an intimate part of their ancient culture (the seagoing part) that, to give it up, would be to destroy the culture itself.

Even good people can be very wrong.

Which brings me back to Israel. Israel is what it is. It was founded as a Jewish state. It is not a theocracy. But it IS a highly militarized refuge for Jews, designed to give Jews a safe place in a world that has inflicted them with unconscionable horror and rampant discrimination. And people who don't know anything about it except the Holocaust need to read the history of Europe. The Holocaust was the END of a long and terrible story of exclusion and pogroms all over Europe, going back to the 5th century AD and the rise of the worst 'christian' patriarchalists and powermongers. (At one point, the caliphate in Spain, Jews were far safer in the Islamic region than in the 'christian' one.)

So THAT's why they're there. And that's why Israel is a Jewish state (--that, combined with the western powers' BAD motives, their greed for oil). And of course it's associated with religion. I know Jews who come back from Israel and get tears in their eyes when they talk about it. It is PILGRIMAGE. It is both religious and emotional. I'm not sayng it shouldn't be. I'm just saying that's what it means to both Jews and non-Jews. It is the birthplace of Judaism and the ancestral home of the Jews.

It may not be a theocracy--but it is a state devoted to one religion, by implication. But it is nothing like Saudi Arabia. It is almost night and day from Saudi Arabia. In fact, this is one of the reasons that I think Israel needs to quickly and dramatically divorce itself from the Bush junta. The Bushites' PREFERRED buds are the Saudi sultans and bin Ladens--altogether the most corrupt bunch of people ever to gain power over any nations. The Bush Cartel and the Saudis. Some friends for Israel. There is a poisoned pill--or a knife in the back--somewhere in there for Israel. I'm sure of it.

The Bushites are cold, callous sons of bitches, out only for profit. That's all they see. That's all that motivates them. They will abandon Israel in a minute, if they see profit in it. And the OTHER thing they will do in a minute, if it's to their advantage, is sick their bigoted, white-supremacist 'christian' supporters on Jews, as they have on blacks, brown immigrants, gays, women, 'liberals' and any other convenient scapegoat. They will blame the cost and carnage of the Middle East war on Israel! Israel's leadership has allied itself with vipers.

So I'm dreaming of a way for Israel to get out of it--to abandon fear, to create something different and better, to pledge themselves to MIDEAST cultural development, and MIDEAST protection (--from conscienceless western oil barons, for one thing), and to create "Truth and Reconciliation," as has been done in South Africa. A hundred years war is not okay. It will destroy Judaism. It will destroy U.S. and Israeli democracy. It will destroy Israel. And it could be a very short "hundred years war" and end in nuclear holocaust. And that will be the end of it all. What will Israel's ancient tradition--or anyone's--be worth then?

The Israelis have to do it--make the first gesture. The Arabic peoples won't do it. Iran won't do it. They've all been pushed too far toward theocratic rule, and they are understandably afraid and suspicious--Iran, for instance, being called part of the "Axis of EVIL," and targeted by the Bush junta. They are NOT evil. THAT is scapegoating. The Iranian people also saw their democracy destroyed by the U.S. and Israel. That's what pushed them into the arms of mullahs. So that's what I think the gesture needs to be. An apology for destroying their democracy--and an attempt to reach around the mullahs to the people. They will respond if they are offered genuine safety.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. Ireland is an odd case--colonialism predates protestant/Catholic split
So there's a good chance they stayed Catholic just to spite their occupiers.

In that case, religion parallels the national identity, but I don't think you have to be Catholic to be considered a full citizen of Ireland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
38. But what is the 'essential nature' of Judaism?
Putting aside any questions of the rights and wrongs of ethnic nationalism and Israel's existence: Is the nature of Judaism after the effects of two millenia of exile and persecution somehow more 'essential' than the nature of Judaism at the time when Jewish kingdoms held sway over the territory of present-day Israel? If they differ in essence, how can we call them both 'Judaism'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #38
45. could you get a little more concrete? sounds like the edge of an
interesting idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. go here....
http://www.jbooks.com/nonfiction/index/NF_Michaelson_Steinsaltz.htm

Not sure I feel very ok with what it says though.... the Tanya.... the concept that people of the Jewish faith are by 'nature' different than goyum????

Really, although Steinsaltz never says so, he draws his ethnocentric anthropology from the Tanya, the masterpiece of Chabad Hasidism, which posits a distinct "two-souled" nature to Jews which is not present in non-Jews. Steinsaltz knows this theory well; his second volume of commentary on the book, Learning from the Tanya, is being published this month. And he also knows well to disguise it, since, if you stop and think about it, there is a radical, dangerous ethnocentrism implied by an anthropology wherein one group is metaphysically and physically different from all other people on the planet.

He hides it, in We Jews, but the essentialism comes through. Again and again, Steinsaltz insists that there is some essential Jewish nature which is inescapable, and which is not transmitted by culture or ideology.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Jewish stuff that sounds as goofy as the goofiest Christian stuff
always makes me happy.

Maybe because I half-believe the stereotype that Jews are smarter than the rest of us.

'two-souled' isn't quite as goofy as the trinity and definitely not as bad as the Rapture, but is nonetheless goofy enough to be comforting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-26-06 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
40. I believe YES he was absolutely right, for the reasons he
gave, and for others. But Israel was created, and exists as a Nation. Where she goes, and how she operates as a Nation, is up to her, and will effect the lives of many. I believe there is room in the world for a peaceful Israel, and a peaceful Middle East, without walls barbed wire and land-mined borders.
It takes a HELL of a lot of work to negotiate peace. War is easy- in the short run. But it really doesn't settle anything. That is why we are still warring after centuries of wars- Peace that is based on the fear and the threat of war, is not peace, it is a temporary cease fire- even if it lasts for decades, and rears its head in a different spot than the last outbreak.

War is not an answer- it is an action. Peace is a way of life.

-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC