geoffff
Ah dear. They are at it again at Connexions.. Read the post and the comments.
Is Zionism integral to Judaism?, they ask.
If they spent a fraction of the time pondering the Christian soul it might be healthier for both them and Jews.
"From its inception Zionism had been always one of a variety of Jewish narratives of identity. Anti- or non-Zionist narratives always existed, both in Europe and the U.S., from Bundists, Yiddishists, German nationalists, universalist and internationalists of various stripes, Marxists, American assimilationists (i.e. classical Reform Judaism), ultra-Traditionalists from Aguddat Yisrael, to Habad, to various communities of Hungarian Orthodoxy now largely coalesced around Satmar Hasidism."
It really is so sad. The point?
If they want Israelis to be robbed of their nationhood and submit to some form of inferior station, alone of all free people, then you would think they would muster the courage to say so. Instead they resort to dhimmified Jews or Jews in the grip of Oslo Syndrome to do it for them.
My comment:
Funny.
I was just going to write a post at the Joint about how antizionist and antisemitic Christians and secular anti-Western leftists always, ... and its got to the point that it is very nearly always ... , use Jews as proxies to deliver their true inner thoughts about Israel and therefore about Jews.
The post was to be inspired by Richard's post here and I just came back for another look and behold:
Point proven.
Kim. Silly him.
Do they really need Jews to formulate and enunciate their thoughts for them? No matter how brilliant, audacious and hugely humane they are?
I don't think so.
There's something else at play here.
There must be something in the European soul that thrills at the sight of a Jew attacking the Jews. Could it be the Christian part of that soul?
I can think of no other case where this happens.
At the beginning of the 20th century over 90% of the world's Jews lived as sub-citizens with special laws in Christian and Muslim lands with no civil liberties or human rights least of all freedom of expression.
By the end of the century all but a handful live in secular liberal democracies where they can pretty much say what they like just like everyone else. So they do.
And just like all people who are free they say all sorts of things and sometimes they say the most appalling nonsense . Just like all other people. Or are you suggesting there is some different standard here?
These books exist because there is a market. Part of that would be the push market of the universities but can there be any doubt that there is a thrill market out there for Jewish self flagellation?
Could part of that market be Christian? After all there is a history. Not all that distant either. Any perversion is possible.
It's got to the point where there is a market in being a "Jew" and really it is now beyond what would be funnier than Abbott and Costello if it wasn't so scary.
I blogged recently about something I saw on Mondoweiss while amusing myself there one evening.
An American who was born and raised Jewish had left the religion and become an atheist and Communist in the 1950's while a Yale student had just converted to Christianity in an Anglican Church in Harlem on American Independence Day.
It was the funniest thing I had seen all year until you think about it a little. Then it gets a little scary.
Before his conversion he was as Jewish as Karl Marx or Leon Trotsky. Now he's a Christian. He's still a Communist of course. Given that he's an Anglican he could still be an atheist for all I know but get this.
He still identifies as a Jew.
Oh I almost forgot. He has published a few Israel bashing books. Sigh.
There has to be a market for these books. It has to be a thrill market. You couldn't be surprised if they have ones with pictures under the counter.
At the end of the day you either accept that people have the right to live in their own free liberal democracies, starting with the Israelis, or you do not. You either are a supporter of human rights or you are not.
Israel is the only remaining homeland for Jewish refugees from Muslim lands in the Middle East and who comprise half the county's Jewish population. They are free because it is a secular state. It is not perfect but any thought of submitting by duress of state to God's law at this stage of the ascent of man is abhorrent.
An abomination.
As it would be in every other Western country.
Now that the Arab Muslims have finally said no to another Muslim state along side the secular Jewish national home it is the only question to answer. "Palestine" is dead. There is no reason to suppose it wasn't a lie from the very start.
Do you really think surrendering Israel and the Jews to them will appease them even if they were yours to surrender?
Do you seriously believe that would ease the grievance? Do you think the world would be better off without them? What else would you surrender?
If that is what you think then why are you so coy about saying it? Why do you appear to be using Jews to say it for you? Or at least think it for you?
hat tip Daphne Anson
cross posted Geoffff's Joint
This Christian minister thinks this is an allegation of antisemitism. Go figure.
I think it has finally got to the point that a clear indicator of the presence of antisemitism is the pre emptive denial of it.
For anti- non-antisemitism . Or something.
Details at the Joint.
update
This Christian minister thinks this is an allegation of antisemitism. Go figure.
I think it has finally got to the point that a clear indicator of the presence of antisemitism is the pre emptive denial of it.
Further Updates
I've been banned!For anti- non-antisemitism . Or something.
Details at the Joint.
Geoffff, good piece!
ReplyDeleteI think I want to address the notion that "Palestine is dead."
It seems to me that it may very well be dead, but we don't need to bury it. We must acknowledge, or so it seems to me, that the Oslo "peace process" is certainly dead and that, therefore, Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of the Jewish state of Israel... as Obama said when he lied to AIPAC in, what?, 2008?
That being the case it is my conviction that Israel should simply declare its eastern border and remove the IDF to behind that border. Some, like Ted Belman, would say that Israel should annex "area C," but I think that the government of the state of Israel should take a fresh look and make a decision on final borders according to the needs of the country.
What's left can be whatever criminal-terrorist entity that the Palestinians create for themselves, which they can call "Palestine" and with Ramallah as the capital.
Do you agree or disagree?
Thanks Mike
ReplyDeleteI've left a response to your comment at the Joint about Obama's likely re election that I was going to cross post here but now see I don't need to.
My focus is on Iran besides which "Palestine" is almost a side issue now This is because the Israelis have been managing it so well.
There is nothing Israel could have done about the rise of Radical Islam and Israel was not the cause of this Nazi revolution. That it has polluted the Palestinians is the least of it and that it has made the "Palestinian" issue intractable is merely a by product.
It was probably intractable anyway. This is just the final nail.
I agree up to a point. I think the "one state solution" is the way to go. A unilateral declaration of the borders but in consultation with allies whose recognition will be very much in order.
There should be no regard for the terms of Oslo at all in this process except to the extent that it has lead to facts on the ground.
Jerusalem will continue to be the undivided capital and allies will recognise that along with borders by moving their embassies there.
The IDF should remain deployed in "Palestine" to the extent necessary to defend the state from attack and to protect the lives of Israeli civilians while they are evacuated from their ancestral homeland to a reserve where they will be safe.
Again.
Some American Native nations know exactly how that plays for a start.
It may be that's a permanent solution.