Where To Now For Jewish America?

http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/24/where-now-jewish-america">newmatilda.com - full story

who wonder why the rest of American Jews aren't far Leftist and anti-Zionist. The reason they question where American Jewry is going is that most of them have little connection to Judaisn in the first place.

project in West Bank and Jerusalem makes one antiZionist and "far left"?

Hmmm the GOP must truly be salivating

Let's start with the author. Wikipedia describes him as an atheist. He's also an anti-Zionist. He cites Stephen Weiss who runs a progressive blog, and is another anti-Zionist. He also cites Noam Chomsky and Tony Judt. How religous are they? Both are also anti-Zionist. Do you deny any of this?

Now can you understand my comment? The article is written by a far Left anti-Israeli Jew and cites a bunch of other far Left anti-Israeli Jews. Of course they're against the occupation. But they are all people who are not merely against the occupation. They're against Israeli existence.

I as one can personally attest to that. People like Noam Chomsky have left their religious and ethnic ties to Judaism behind in attempt to ingrain themselves with the people of modern far left politics that are anti-religious and mostly view the Jewish identity with disdain. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but Tony Judt and Stephen Weiss are the last people capable of commenting on the zeitgeist of the current American Jewish community.

you love. Are you going to claim that interracial marraige is a sign that black and white people aren't aware of their history or heritage aswell?

Probably one of the most racist sentiments I've heard openly expressed on DU, but okay.

your statement

People like Noam Chomsky have left their religious and ethnic ties to Judaism behind

the fact is that the greatest threat to Judaism is not Hamas or Palestinians or anything but good old fashioned assimilation it is a paradox and one which no one wants to discuss

BTW I am the product of such an intermarriage and few kids of such marriages are raised as Jews or really anything else for that matter.

and many or most of the non-Jewish spouses are very supportive of Israel, especially those raising Jewish children (and sending them on trips to Israel as 16 year olds, etc).

and I will give you a very well known example Bill Maher who is quite non-religious

this does not mean that 1/2 Jews are not proud of their Jewish heritage, but not that many self identify as Jews

what brought it home to me was learning that those who were 1/2 or 1/4 Jewish were Jew enough for the Nazi's, something I have passed on to my children or had you been born in a different time and place you too would have been rounded up and gassed during the Holocaust

his children were raised Jewish and she was converting

but in most cases the kids are not raised in any particular religion and halakic law states that children born of a Jewish father and gentile mother are not considered Jews even if mom converts and another example of this would be Paul Wellstone, whose opponent Rudy Boschwitz who also a Jew in the 1996 senate election tried to use that Wellstone had married a gentile and was not raising his children as Jews against Wellstone in the campaign, it was an epic fail

left-wingers. That makes them sound opportunistic and insincere - I don't think that is so.

Rather, secularism, leftism, and anti-nationalism often go together and appeal to the same people- though by no means always. (Some very religious and close-knit Jewish groups - and not just Neturei Karta - are anti-Zionist, and many very strong Zionists are secular.)

I would describe Judt as anti-Zionist, but not Chomsky. To me, anyone who supports a two-state solution is not anti-Zionist.

This doesn't mean that I think they're representative of anything but their own opinions - but then that's true of most people!

Or to run a "progressive blog".

The Jewish identity has never been exclusively tied to that, or to being openly religious. If it had been, the Nazis would have left secular leftist Jews or non-Zionist Jews alone.

Just because someone on Wiki wrote that he's an anti-Zionist doesn't make him one. Unless their idea of anti-Zionist is being critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and opposition to the Occupation. And he most definately is not opposed to Israel's existence. Rather than blindly believe some anonymous soul on Wiki, how about taking Antony Loewenstein's own words over that of some Wikithingy? Here's what he said in the introduction to 'My Israel Question'

'I support the state of Israel and believe in its existence. This book examines how much Zionism - the ideology of Jewish nationalism - is to blame for this intractable conflict. There must be a way for Israel to exist securely while allowing justice for the Palestinian people. A sustainable future for Israel and the Palestinians is my central concern.

I am often accused of being anti-Israel and hostile towards the Jewish people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I support the rights of Israelis to live in peace and security, but not at the expense of the Palestinians.'

As to whether he's an atheist or not, it's got nothing to do with his opposition to the Occupation, and I did find what you said where you tried to link a lack of religion to being Jewish and also Zionism to be a bit strange, seeing as how there's many Jews who aren't religious but are Zionists. I'm guessing this all boils down to what someone's definition of Zionism is...

Also, this 'far Left' slur seems to be a uniquely American thing. Loewenstein's Australian, and here we don't go round labelling anyone slightly left of Bush as being 'far Left'. He's most definately Left in his politics (contributing to 'Not Happy, John' and writing for 'New Matilda' is a huge giveaway), but if you were familiar with what he's written about politics, you'd realise that he's pretty much a boring, garden variety left-wing Australian....

I don't mind if people disagree with him, but I do mind when stuff gets said about him that just isn't true...

"Talk about the one-state solution is also spreading, prompted by the stalling and obfuscation of the political and media elite. Meanwhile Jewish attacks against Arabs in Israel are soaring."

http://newmatilda.com/2009/03/31/time-running-out-israel-adapt
links to:
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=89307§ionid=351020202

"I've been struck during my time here by the profound disconnect between the attitudes and delusions of many in the West versus the realities in Israel and Palestine. It's a conflict mired in myths, not least the one that credits the "security wall" with saving Israeli lives, when, in fact, the truth is far murkier."

http://newmatilda.com/2009/07/16/these-are-not-conditions-peace
links to:
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-exploding-myth-that-israeli-barrier.html



Clearly anyone who uses an article on Presstv to assert anything is not interested in the truth. He also supports a one state solution so I'm not sure how that makes him any kind of Zionist.

And no offense, but that's a bit of a pot meet kettle moment considering you have an affinity to using not only articles from stinky sources but you also post on a site that condones hatred of Arabs and Muslims...

Forgive my delay in responding, but I have been in trial for the last few days. IN any event, in a Ha'aretz interview http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerGuest.jhtml?itemNo=848637, Loewenstein said this:

You ask what I mean when I talk of Israel being an "anachronism." Let me briefly explain. I was liberally borrowing Tony Judt's expression. He wrote in 2003: "The very idea of a 'Jewish state' - a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded - is rooted in another time and place." I share this belief. 2007 is not 1948, and racially based nations are no longer as acceptable as they clearly were in the 20th century. Humans progress, and so do our ideas about race and religion.

If he believes that the expression of Jewish nationhood is an anachronism, then he's an anti-Zionist. He also said this:

If you believe that my ideas are impractical for Israel's future, Zionists and the Israeli government would probably agree.

Notice how he refers to the Zionists as if they are not his group? Finally, in summarizing his book, he says:

Secondly, the Palestinian right of return is a sacred issue that will not simply disappear by Zionists wishing it would. Around five million Palestinians have the historical and legal right to return to land stolen in 1948, ethnically cleansed for the sake of a Jewish state. Arguably the vast majority of these Palestinians would not return to their ancestral lands, but they, like Jews, must have the right to do so. Many Jews and the Israeli government fear that such moves would dilute a Jewish state and make its future impossible. They're right, but only if a racially exclusive nation is their ideal. Israelis have the right to live in peace in their ancestral lands, and so do Palestinians.

This is telling. Notice how he describes Zionism in racial terms? He thinks that a Jewish Israel is a racially exclusive state. How could he not be anti-Zionist if he thinks that a Jewish state is racially exclusive? However, the claim that a Jewish state would be racially exclusive is a complete misrepresentation of what Zionism is. More to the point of my original post, the very idea that Jewish is a race, and that therefore a Jewish state must be racially exclusive, is a completely non-Jewish idea! Jews don't' think of themselves as a race. We conceive of ourselves as a religion and a people, but one defined by our ideas, not our blood. Loewenstein is stating a Leftist idea rather than a Jewish idea.

I'm not using the word Leftist to smear or insult. I am using it to be descriptive, and to differentiate between ideas that come from Judaism, and ideas that come from other sources. The point of my post was that this Australian is commenting on the possible direction of American Judaism when he doesn't seem to have much of a connection to Judaism at all, and certainly not to the American Jewish community. Jewishness is a set of ideas. Among those ideas are the religious beliefs of Judaism and the belief in a Jewish nationality or people hood. Now it's possible to not be very religious and still have a connection to the Jewish people. It might theoretically be possible to be religious and not believe in a Jewish people, but I don't know of many Jews who believe that way. Neturei Karta is not a counter example, because that group is religious, and does believe in a Jewish people--they just believe that present day Israel is violative of scripture.

But if Jewish is a set of ideas, then one's connection to the Jewish community depends on living those ideas and beliefs. Judging from Loewenstein's writing, he isn't religious, and he has a completely non-Jewish idea of Jewish identity. His ideas, values, beliefs and thinking don't appear to come from his being Jewish. They come from his Leftist ideology. Further, if he really wanted to cite to American Jews who could show where the community is going, then why did he cite to Chomsky, Judt, and Weiss? They're hardly representative of the American Jewish community, and they certainly aren't moderates.

Being opposed to exclusive privileges being withheld from non-Jewish citizens does not make someone an anti-Zionist. He was very clear in the introduction of his book what his stance is, and I'm not sure at all why you don't want to get it from the horses mouth....

I'm also a bit surprised that a member of a group isn't supposed to refer to their own group lest you think they're removing themselves from it. I'm an Australian, and referring to Australians, which I do quite regularly, does not mean I don't think of myself as an Australian. Zionism is the same...

Also, he's talking about some Zionists who do view Zionism through a racial prism. Are you denying these sort of people exist?

The point of my post was that this Australian is commenting on the possible direction of American Judaism when he doesn't seem to have much of a connection to Judaism at all, and certainly not to the American Jewish community. Jewishness is a set of ideas.

Here's the thing. I don't know and don't care whether yr Jewish or not. Which is why I find this attempt to be the guardian of who is or isn't Jewish enough or Zionist or antiZionist or Leftist to be a tad silly. You don't appear to be very familiar with Loewenstein and appear to believe that if someone doesn't adhere to whatever it is that you use as a seal of approval to have a Jewish identity, then they don't have a connection to the Jewish community. That's silly. Just as silly as appearing to think that there's no such thing as Jews who are atheists who have a strong Jewish identity.


btw, after seeing a bunch of Americans carrying on about how much of an ignorant twit they thought a Jew who was raised in the UK was when he spoke about the British Jewish community, it's pretty damn hard to have any problems with an Australian talking about their observations of the American Jewish community. But it's pretty clear that the problem isn't with what nationality those guys are - the problem's with what they say....

His words from his blog:

"As an anti-Zionist Australian Jew, the opportunity to air my views to a wide public audience are few."http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2006/01/as-anti-zionist.html

To answer your question with another question, why should I accept his self-serving description of himself in the opening to his book over the actual substance of what he says?

Now, if I were to suddenly post on this board that I was a proud socialist, you'd think I was lying, and you'd be right to. Everything I've posted on this board since I've been here tells you I'm not a socialist. So when Loewenstein tries to gain credibility for his positions by claiming that he's a "proud Jew," I, as a mainstream American Jew, am absolutely entitled to question that. I'm also entitled to question his ability to tell people where American Judaism is going in it's thinking, especially when he claims the likes of Chomsky, Judt and Weiss are "realists."

I doubt very much you've read his old blog, or have read his new blog, so how did you come across that particular comment?

To answer yr question with another question, yr sitting there calling Loewenstein a liar, so why is it that you'd then turn around and believe what he says when it suits yr agenda?


You've just admitted you label people the way you feel like and don't care less about what they say they are or aren't, because apparenly you know better than them. And you'll even label people you haven't even got more than a passing knowledge of. If you posted on this board you were a socialist, I wouldn't think anything of the sort, as I've never seen you post anything about socialism or on anything at DU apart from the I/P conflict for me to know or not. But, why should I accept yr self-serving description of yrself as a mainstream American Jew? Heh, I think I'll follow yr lead and I won't. ;)

All I said originally is that he's an anti-Zionist. He says he is, and that comports with what he writes about Israel. You're the one trying to make him into something he's not.

When you said that originally you hadn't seen that blog entry and have labelled anything else he's said about himself as self-serving bullshit and just fastened on the thing you like that suits yr agenda. You claimed also that he wants to see Israel destroyed, which he hasn't said at all and believes the complete opposite of. Which is why you didn't bother answering any of the questions I asked you in my previous post...

I never said that he wants to see Israel destroyed. I said that he's against Israeli existence. That's not the same thing. I said that he's anti-Zionist. He says on the one hand that he's not against Israeli existance and on the other that he's anti-Zionist. They can't both be true. He may not want to see Israel violently destroyed (and I never said that he did), but he certainly would like to see Israel dissapear. An anti-Zionist is someone who does not respect the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. He doesn't. That was apparent from his article, and he admits as much on his blog. I certainly didn't jump to the conclusion based on his opposition to the settlements and the occupation. That doesn't mean anyone is anti-Zionist. However, it wasn't hard to read between the lines of his article to understand where he was coming from. It really is you who is misrepresenting what he and I both believe and wrote.

Not too difficult to understand, I would hope. I find it interesting that you suddenly become very literal when it comes to what you say, yet when it comes to others you 'read between the lines' to see whatever it is you want to see.

I'm sure whatever it is that yr own personal definition of anti-Zionism is, it's not the same as others, including people who do see themselves as anti-Zionist. That's why I'd rather go on how they define it themselves, rather than what some American who uses it along with Leftist as slurs...


btw, I did NOT misrepresent anything. You do know what the meaning of misrepresentation is, don't you?

Also, you didn't answer my question earlier. How did you come across that old entry on an archived blog of Antony Loewestein's? It's clear yr not a regular reader, so I'm interested to know...

You already know the answer, of course. Look at post 45. It changes nothing. It only confirms that my reading of Loewenstein from his article is correct. As far as definitions go, I prefer objective ones rather than the Humpty Dumpty standard you seem to prefer. Genug.

Seriously. You sit there unsuccessfully attempting to mind-read and telling me what I know and don't know (for yr info I ignore the person who wrote post #45 as they're far too zealoted and manic for my tastes and have a nasty habit of accusing people of supporting or hating things they've already said the opposite of), you label people as though yr some authority on how people define themselves, and get hot under the collar when people don't agree with you. Sorry, but I've seen nothing objective in any definition you've given in this thread, and seeing I haven't attempted to define anything, I guess calling something you haven't even laid eyes on a Humpty Dumpty standard makes you feel better.

Me, I have not the slightest bit of interest in trying to decipher whatever it is that you've popped up belatedly with...

Better luck next time replying to me within the allowable window of time for replies.

After all, Judaism existed for 1900 years without having a nationalist movement. Were the Jewish people who lived in those 19 centuries not just as Jewish as you are?

Why must Jewish=Zionist?

Just as a person can be gentile without being religious.

But for a person to be a Jew, is not a blood identity. It's an ideological identity. Jewish is what a person believes. My point was and is that the people Loewenstein writes about (and Loewenstein himself) don't get their values, beliefs, ideas, and thinking from Judaism. They get them from their Leftist ideology. Now, absolutely Jewish Law defines them as Jewish, and Loewenstein says he is a proud Jew. But if the ideas he lives by come from somewhere else, then I don't know how much of a connection he has to the Jewish community to be able to comment on how that community is thinking; especially when he cites Chomsky, Judt, and Weiss as the apparent mainstream.

To them, that identity is about fighting against what they see as injustice. Is there a reason you can't accept that?

There is absolutely a strong belief in Judaism and the Jewish people that we are on this world to make it a better place, and that means fighting injustice. That is absolutely a Jewish idea (though not exclusively). The direction Leftist Jews take from there is based on their Left ideology. What they think of as injustice, and how they think about it and what that better world might look like. That comes from the Left. That's why Loewenstein describes Israel as a "racially exclusive nation." Thinking that the Palestinians are entitled to justice is Jewish. Thinking Jews are a race isn't.

People can be Zionists without being Jews...
People can be Zionists without being religious...
People can be Jewish without being Zionists...
People can be Jewish without being religious....
Zionism is an ideology embraced by both the Left and Right of politics...

Hope I haven't missed anything...

Antony Loewenstein is just as Jewish as any Jew posting in this forum, and you've got no business or right saying otherwise...

You should be aware that your using the orthodox definition of who is a Jew when you state that a non religious person can be Jewish (based on mothers religious background). Other Jewish denominations, like Reconstructionism don't hold this view. Reconstructionist Judaism believes that a person is Jewish through his/her actions and involvement with the religious tradition, which would include a bnei mitzvah and an ongoing commitment to social justice and personal ethics.

To give you an example, the orthodox would consider Bill Maher Jewish due to his mothers "jewishness" but the reconstructionist movement wouldn't because he did not have a bar mitzvah and does not actively involve himself in any Jewish community.

Under the usual reading of Jewish law he's Jewish, and I accept that. But he's not religious, and doesn't appear to have any connection to any Jewish community.

Clearly you must have some knowledge of it as you've made the call that Loewenstein doesn't appear to have any connection to it. So tell me about it and whether you think belonging to a Jewish community is based on ones stance on the I/P conflict?

There's a mix of religious and secular Jews who share a connection to God, Torah, and Nation (or spirituality, ethics, and ethnicity as Meshuga has put it). As for whether ones belonging to a Jewish community depends on one's stand on the I/P iusue, you already know that I don't believe that it does, so I guess you've been reduced to just baiting. Sad.

So yr idea of what defines the Sydney community is pretty damn weak....

btw, you might want to consider knocking off the abusive stuff coz accusing me of baiting when I ask you a question is just showing that yr not interested in genuine discussion, which is kinda sad seeing originally I had thought you were better than that. Oh well. And you might want to also have a think about not telling me that I already know the answer to questions I ask you coz that's just lame, and yr no mind-reader...

That's because being Jewish isn't solely a religious thing, but it's also cultural. Considering that I've seen posters jumped all over in the past by 'supporters' of Israel when they imply that Jews are all religious, it's a bit surprising now to see a similar thing being argued by a 'supporter' of Israel like Aranthus.

I would wager that it is fair to say that nobody on this forum has that sort of power.

The fact that Jews themselves cannot agree on who is a Jew (how's that for self-referential logic?) does suggest that it's not a well-defined concept.

Yeah, no-one here at DU has that power, but I think a few of them like to pretend they're the final word on who is a Jew. Away from this forum I've seen everything ranging from a Reform rabbi I used to swap emails with, who used to tell me that being Jewish was a matter of feeling an affinity with the Jewish people and not needing anything formal like conversion or even being born to a Jewish mum, through to those who judge being Jewish based on how zealously they try to justify everything the Israeli govt does to the Palestinians...

We got into that a few years back to help out a cousin in London who wanted to do that. And she does not care a fig about it. Married me, I'm definitely not Jewish, goes to Buddhist services when she goes, pays not the slightest attention to what is going on in Israel, etc. And I think THAT is the future of Jews in the US, assimilation, just a matter of a couple more generations. But, if I understand how it works right, my son by her is a Jew too ...

I'm so not fond of any way of thinking that says that someone is limited to choosing their partner based on them being the same...

Or as I have it written down somewhere, "Time is a tailor specializing in alterations."

I think the same applies to the UK and the EU also

ridiculous. Don't try to conflate valid criticism of settlements with the utter hatred of modern Zionist beliefs and a questioning of the very right to exist of Israel.

doing the conflation you mention

They're just Jewish people who have other views, views that are just as legitimate as yours.

I'm not even saying that they're not Jewish. It's a question of where they get the ideas that they live by. What I object to is the idea that some people gain credibility for their anti-Israel positions because they are nominally Jewish, when the ideas that they espouse don't come from Judaism. On the other hand, I certainly don't make this same claim about Neturei Karta and similar groups, even though I disagree with them profoundly.

Which ideas do they hold that couldn't possibly derive from Judaism?

It's that word "racially" that bothers me. He could have said that Israel was a stratified society or that Arabs were second class citizens or anything like that. However, he chose to refer to "race." As applied to Jews (and to Palestinians/Arabs), that is not only utterly false, its a very un-Jewish way of thinking about Jews. We aren't a race. My next door neighbor is obviously of African descent. He's also the cantor at the neighborhood synagogue. However, thinking of people in terms of race is very much an idea of the Left.

Ideological identities are different precisely because they have different ideas. Jewish is an ideological identity, so there must be ideas that Jews believe, that are different from other groups. Just as Liberals and Conservatives have different ideas.

It is sad that Nazis attempted to create the idea of a "Jewish race" to serve their own purposes and that it caught on.

From my perception the use of "racial" and "race" is proof of ignorance or malice.

Personally, I don't ascribe sinister Nazi-like motives to people who use it. I think it's likely a case of getting 'racism' confused with 'bigotry'...

It is proof of ignorance or malice. No matter who uses it. I am not into playing the "he said she said" bullshit. The use bothers me and I call it as I see it. I don't hang in here too often to keep score. I worry about my own posts.

"Jewish" is anyone who is born Jewish or go through a formal process of becoming Jewish. Judaism is something that some Jews follow as it is passed from generation to generation. A Jewish person saying something that goes against what Judaism teaches is no more or less of a Jew than the most pious Jew.

First of all according to Jewish law and tradition, anyone who is born of a Jewish mother or who converts is Jewish. Some Jewish denominations (including my own) accept people as Jews if the father or mother is is Jewish, or if they convert. Likewise, a person can be a Jew and completely secular. Judaism is the name for the religion. Where I might differ with (or not, I'm not certain), is that I believe that the religion developed many of the ideas that formed the people, so that even secular Jews owe some of their beliefs to Judaism.

...and all the changes that Judaism has gone through.

My opinion about the secular is that one would argue that they follow Judaism to a certain degree because of the three components of Judaism that I listed in a post below: ethics (Torah), spirituality (God), and peoplehood (Israel). While religious Jews adheres to all 3 components, the secular can experience a meaningful Jewish life through one or two of these components.

For example, Humanistic Judaism does not subscribe to Jewish spirituality but follow Jewish ethics and peoplehood. Atheist Jews are also linked since they subscribe to Jewish peoplehood and have no issues following Jewish folkways. The classical Reform movement originally rejected the peoplehood component and wanted to turn Judaism into a religion which is not the case with the movement today. All three components are important in Reform Judaism. Even in my Reform congregation where the Rabbi and leadership are old school Reform.

Anyway, in my opinion, the Jewish people created, shaped, and continue to shape the religion. But at the same time, I also think the religion shape the Jewish people and allows the secular to have a meaningful Jewish experience. I think Judaism is the glue that keeps the atheist, the ultra-religious, and everyone in between together as one people.

"The extremes of the debate remain alive but the voices of realists are getting an increasing amount of air-time." And the opinion of a "Realist" is that "Zionism has "been corrupted into an uncompromising ethno-religious real estate pact with a partisan God, a pact that justifies any and all actions against real or imagined threats, critics, and enemies".

Oh god and my head nearly spun of it's hinges when I read "Despite the inspiring nature of recent events in Iran, they have also highlighted, depressingly, how much less vibrant Israel's dissenting community is compared to that now making itself felt in the Islamic Republic".

Yes the brutal oppression to the tune of at times having hundreds of people being slaughtered for protesting is a testament to the "Vibrant dissenting community of Iran". I mean one person a year someone might get hit by a tear gas canister and die, but Israel has never cracked down on dissent anywhere close to the islamic republic's actions.

Nice how the idiot who wrote this equates Iran's and Israel's elections. And ASSUMES that anyone who leans left automatically supports Palestinian suicide bombers. Or should. Charming.

And you really have a problem comprehending what people write. Or maybe it's just an intentional thing to twist what's been said...

is that he seems to be saying that Tony Judt and Noam Chomsky are moderates and realists. What a crock. Maybe on his planet.

Carlo Strenger, Ben Pogrund, or David Hirsch - are rightwing nutter pro-settlers who are liberal on all other issues but somewhat retarded on I/P.

:eyes:

you know, the kind of crimes against humanity that Israel routinely engages in.

that's just me I guess

(like stoning or honor killings, hanging of gays), oppose violation of civil liberties like freedom of speech, assembly and religion.

You know, the kind of crimes against humanity that radical Islam routinely engages in.

Just me, I guess.

But real leftists also know that defending the Occupation and Operation Cast Lead is not an effective way to oppose those things, since "radical Islam" can't be changed by the guns, tanks and D-9 Cats of the IDF. The last decade has proven that Hamas can't be stopped by force.

The best way to defeat "radical Islam" is to avoid doing the things that drive people like the Palestinians to support it.

;)

Just wanted to make sure that you'd read the correction to yr claims about Antony Loewenstein, and I was kind of hoping that you'd want to tell me what yr definition of Zionism is. I wouldn't bother asking the one-dimensional type posters that pop up in these threads, but I am interested in what yr idea of it is and what you think it is that makes someone a hater of Israel who wants to see it destroyed etc

As far as my definition of Zionism. It is the belief that the Jews, as a nation have the right to a state of their own, just as the French do, or the Italians, Japanese etc. It has also come to mean the idea that Israel is that Jewish state, and has a right to continue to be a Jewish state. It does not mean that there have to be special privileges for Jews, or that there can't be a non-Jewish minority.

Given that definition, I think that there are two varieties of anti-Zionism. The first is that espoused by Neturei Karta and similar groups, and is based on their peculiar reading of scripture. Essentially they believe that the Jewish people can not have their state of Israel until God delivers Israel by his own hand, and therefore, that Israel is usurping God's authority. I profoundly disagree with Neturei Karta's position (as do most Jews), but there is no denying that their ideas come from their Jewishness and not from somewhere else. For example, they don't deny the existence of a Jewish people.

The second variety of anti-Zionism is based on the idea that Jewish nationalism is itself somehow illegitimate. The Palestine Charter claims that Jews are not a nation entitled to a state; Tony Judt (and Loewenstein) believe it is an anachronism. These, ideas don't come from Judaism and are in fact a denial of one of the foundational elements of the identity of the Jewish people, by denying Jewish existence as a people or by denying their national rights. In my opinion, such ideas are not only not Jewish, they are per se antisemitic.

Why MUST that nationalist movement be an unassailable part of Judaism now?

I'm not actually opposed to the existence of Israel myself(although I do think it needs to radically change how it's dealing with both the Palestinians and the Arab minority within Israel itself), but there's a problem that has to be wrestled with:

Yes, the world's Jewish communities(I phrase it that way because there are several)have a right to a state. Yet there was the fact that another people live where this state was established. Those people weren't and aren't monsters. They weren't and aren't Nazis. Yet they were, in many ways, displaced, and they do have a real grievance about all this. And the answer to this grievance has to be found, and in ways other than having the Israeli government continually whining about why the other Arab countries didn't let the Palestinians settle there(fine, ok, they should have, but they'd all be just as militant about going home even if that had happened and we all know that.)

There needs to be a real program of not only compensation but also recognition, recognition that the Palestinians didn't deserve to suffer as they were made to.

There has always been a Jewish people. They knew that they came from an ancient state.

How do we know that it couldn't equally be maintained though a democratic binational state, a state that would be much more in tune with Jewish values(which are in the main progressive)than the current Israeli government is.

And there hasn't always been A SINGLE "Jewish people". There have, in fact, always been several Jewish communities(Sephardic, Mizrahi, Ashkenazy being the primary ones but smaller ones being scattered in various places). And the people in most of those places WEREN'T specifically fixated on establishing or reestablishing(depending on how one looks at it)a specific state in the biblical land of Israel.

"Next Year In Jerusalem" was a vague, fond wish for most of them...not a defined political program.

It's arrogant to say that only those people who specifically identify with Zionism can truly consider themselves Jewish.

What do you say, for example, to those who see the Israeli government, in its militarism, expansionism and its increasingly right-wing political and social policies, as a betrayal of everything that is, to them, the values of the Jewish tradition? Who believe that the state has simply become irredeemable and is not worth the time and energy to defend, as opposed to fighting for their values as Jews by working for a universalist program of social justice? I myself am neither Jewish NOR an anti-zionist, but I find that I have to respect where they are coming from and that I admire their courage for making the stand they've made. Can you simply dismiss them? Would you not be asking them, in demanding that they be Zionist simply to prove to you that they are Jews, to simply abandon their most deeply held convictions and reduce themselves to the level of the partisans of every other right-wing nationalist movement?

You wrote:

It's arrogant to say that only those people who specifically identify with Zionism can truly consider themselves Jewish.

I completely agree with you, and I have not said that anyone, including Loewenstein, is not Jewish simply because he or she is not Zionist. Perhaps you have seen some of my posting on Neturei Karta. They are an Orthodox sect that is anti-Zionist, yet I would never question that they are Jewish. I'm not questioning that Antony Loewenstein is Jewish. I'm questioning what being Jewish means to him. Obviously, I can't get into his head, but I'm entitled to ask: What aspects of a Jewish identity does he live? Jewish identity rests on three belief sets. Meshuga has posted them as Spirituality (Jewish religious tradition), ethics (based on Jewish religious law), and folkways (being ethnically Jewish as defined by custom and not blood). Loewenstein is an atheist so he doesn't live Jewish spirituality and probably not Jewish religious law. His parents are Jewish. So what? I care about what he believes, and says, and writes, and does. The fact that he may have grown up liking matzo isn't of particular relevance to what he's writing.

How do we know that it couldn't equally be maintained though a democratic bi national state, a state that would be much more in tune with Jewish values(which are in the main progressive)than the current Israeli government is.

Several reasons:

1. There's no such thing as a Democratic bi-national state (Canada isn't' really, nor is Switzerland, and they are the closest the world has seen). Even the Czechs and the Slovaks had to split up.

2. 3000 years of Jewish history.

3. Jewish values are not progressive, nor are they conservative. They're Jewish. The direction that people take regarding social policy depends on other factors. Do you know many Jews on the Right? Ever talked with someone who's Orthodox? They have very strong Jewish values, and they aren't Progressive.

So to answer the question in the title of your post. Obviously Diaspora Jews maintained their Jewish identity. But what's wrong with the Jews having a state where that identity is the majority culture?

And probably also "antisemitic".

The Jewish people are not, haven't been for two millenia, and arguably never were, a nation; "Jewish" is a religion and an ethnic group (closely overlapping but not identical), not a nation.

Jewish people have exactly the same national rights as any other: as a British Jew, I have British national rights, and so on.

And to suggest that that opinion is antisemitic is both absurd and offensive, not to mention that crying wolf in this way weakens opposition to genuine antisemitism.

According to dictionary.com:

"an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages."

I think Jews fit that definition. In this context, "people," and "nation," mean the same thing.

Let's say first of all that I strongly disagree with a 'one-state solution' under present or any immediately likely circumstances, and consider that it would be a recipe for massive bloodshed. I think people like Judt are wrong.

But it's only antisemitic if you think that *only* Jews should not have a nation. Many people on the left are generally anti-nationalist on principle, and some of these are unrealistic enough to think that this is not an unachievable or distantly unachievable ideal, but achievable right now.

Leftist ideology (as opposed to mainstream Democrats, for example), rejects the legitimacy of any ideological identification not itself. It certainly is anti-nationalist as you say. It also thinks that "religion is the opiate of the masses." And I've heard at least one Leftist commentator (Randi Rhoades ) opine that if you voted for Bush you were either stupid or cruel. So, I suppose the real question is whether the Left is any more dismissive of Jews and Judaism than it is of Catholicism, or any other national or political identity. Of course, I don't mean all people on the Left, nor do I mean any specific person. I'm talking about the ideology. And also obviously, the further out on the Left one gets, the more this becomes apparent.

Most holders of *any* ideology (religious or political) consider at the very least that their ideology is better than others, and often that other ideologies are illegitimate or invalid.

Catholics think that Protestant ideology is invalid; Jews that Muslim and Christian ideologies are invalid; Muslims that Jewish and Christian ideologies are invalid; all of them that atheist ideology is invalid; etc. This doesn't necessarily mean that they think that people of a different faith are evil or should be punished or ostracized or even that they are foolish - but it does mean that they think that the ideology/belief system is incorrect.

Right-wingers often think not only that left-wing viewpoints are invalid, but that left-wingers are traitors, or not true citizens of their countries. This seems to me to be commoner on the right than on the left (it does occur in communist dictatorships, but then I would consider the latter to be right-wing in all but economics).

Bush's much more moderate father actually said that he considered atheists not to be full citizens of America.

As regards Randi Rhodes' comment: I think she was overstating her case, but that there is a kernel of truth in her view. It certainly isn't true that all *individuals* who voted for Bush are stupid or cruel; but I do consider the Bushite ideology of preemptive war; of accepting 'enhanced interrogation' as valid; of favouring the rich over the poor. as fundamentally morally wrong - the philosophy of the playground bully. This again does not mean that all his voters believed in or accepted bullying and harshness and violence. But that is how I would describe *his* philsophy.

As a parallel: I would certainly not say that all who voted for Hamas are thereby terrorism supporters. There were other reasons why some people voted for Hamas. But nonetheless I would describe Hamas, as an organization, as pro-terrorism - as, I'm sure, you would!

Many leftists are against all nationalism, though many aren't, and some are and have been hyper-nationalist revolutionaries. Most right-wingers are nationalists. Most nationalists disapprove not only of anti-nationalism, but of the nationalist sentiments of rival countries and organizations. (My view: nationalism is a bad thing in principle, but it is a lesser evil than what are nowadays usually the two main alternatives - imperialism and tribalism.)

In any case, my main point is that believers in any ideology tend to consider other ideologies to be wrong.

There's a big difference between invalidity and illegitimacy. Sure every religion thinks that it's "right," and others are, "wrong." For that matter, in this discussion, I think I'm right and you're wrong, and I assume you believe the opposite. That's fine. There's such a thing as legitimate disagreement. However, I don't think that you're stupid or evil because of those beliefs, and I hope you believe the same of me. Likewise, as a Jew, I believe that Judaism is right for me and that Islam is wrong. However, Islam is perfectly valid for Muslims, just as Protestantism is perftly valid for Protestants, etc. I don't think that either is stupid or evil. "Religion is the opiate of the masses," means that religion is a tool of the oppressor. It's not something that the Left merely disagrees with; it's something that should be done away with. Likewise nationalisms. That was my problem with what Randi Rohoades said. It was the equivalent to saying that anyone who voted for Hamas was a terrorist supporter.

As for Bush the Elder's comment, I wasn't aware of it. I reject that viewpoint. I knew there was a reason I didn't vote for him.

In fact normally not. *But* the right often do think such things of the left. For every leftist who thinks that 'religion is the opiate of the masses' (and not all leftists do think that by any means; there are plenty of left-wing religious people), there are several religious rightists who think that 'an atheist cannot be a moral person'. (Though again, especially in Britain and generally outside America, it's quite possible for a right-winger to be atheist or indifferent to religion.) For every leftist who thinks that *all* Tory/Republican voters are cruel or stupid, there is at least one and probably several rightists who think that all left-wing or liberal voters are stupid/ insane/ immoral/ unpatriotic/ don't belong as citizens of their country/ etc. I once knew someone whose standard response to anyone with a more left-wing view than his was 'you have a broken moral compass'. In Thatcher's Britain, many right-wingers sneered at left-wingers and liberals as wimps/ failures/ supporters of failure.

Personal example from message-board posting: I have posted on DU for five years, with a username which instantly indicates that I'm not American, and have only twice been told that I am 'only a guest on the board' and 'have no right to comment'. I once made the mistake of posting on a board that was dominated by American right-wingers, but included a fair number of British people too. I left within a couple of days, after I and a couple of my fellow-Brits were called 'Limey sluts'.

Does that charter say whether or not Australians are entitled to a state?

Arabs aren't "entitled to a state." I mean they have no problem with the ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT, or the SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, etc. Or when Iraq's constitution says its part of the "Arab Nation."

As an anti-Zionist
http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2006/01/as-anti-zionist.html

Here's a little more.



http://www.socialistworker.org.au/online-features/antony-loewenstein-“israel-has-become-an-apartheid-state”/

He's against a state that is "dictated by religiously-based doctrine and racial exceptionalism"!!!!

He opposes Israel's "ongoing and brutal occupation over another people"!!!


What a nutter!!!

:crazy: