Am I a anti-semitist?

[Ned]

Spencer, It is obvious that we would get along a lot better with the Arabs if we switched sides. We support Israel on principle, not on self interest. This has caused great economic damage to this country. Remember 1973. I have no clue as to why one would think it would be in our economic interest to support Israel.

We are not like the British. They switched sides in 1938 to pacify the Arabs. They lead the Jordanian war effort in 1948. The Brits are not to be trusted - at least not on this issue.

Ned

[SpencerH]

Ned

Its not economic self interest but military strategy. The Isrealis are seen to be the most stable "pro-western" country in the region. We cannot "switch sides". As long as we support the Israelis, we assume that we will have a "friendly" country from which to conduct operations (as necessary). If we removed our support from Israel, we would loose that possibility and we would not necessarily gain the same thing from the surrounding arabic countries (that are perceived to be too volatile).

When the Shah of Iran was deposed it meant that we lost the only secure middle eastern base of operations that was independent of Israel. If you look at American policies towards Isreal during that time you'll see that we had more flexibility in what we condoned and what we rejected, all the while supporting Israel's "right to exist".

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Bin Laden is not a religious fundementalist, he is an example of a delusionary psychotic opportunist who mis-uses the tenets of faith for his own evil.

Oh well say the religious or ideologic moment or sect that haven't had their share of that kind of people (even or perhaps often as founders).

[SpencerH]

Sorry, ?

[Natan]

Ah, okay, the point of saying you hadn't been called a goy was to draw attention to the fact that Chris isn't Jewish either.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Natan
Ah, okay, the point of saying you hadn't been called a goy was to draw attention to the fact that Chris isn't Jewish either.

hi ,



as for the rest ; was christ an anti-semitist ?
just a q to keep in line with the topic , ....

have a nice day

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Natan
Ah, okay, the point of saying you hadn't been called a goy was to draw attention to the fact that Chris isn't Jewish either.

Actually no one called me a goy. No even said I hadn't been called one except me. It wouldn't bug me if I had been for that matter.

Originally posted by panang
as for the rest ; was christ an anti-semitist ?

I am pretty sure there weren't any semitists around in Jesus's time. Some Semites of course. Him included. Anti-Semetic christians strike me as odd at best.

Panang you might keep in mind that many of the people on this thread don't think of Jesus as the Christ. He would have to be the Messiah for that and he still hasn't met the specs. He has to rule Israel to meet the Messiah specs. Kind of hard for a dead person to do.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I am pretty sure there weren't any semitists around in Jesus's time. Some Semites of course. Him included. Anti-Semetic christians strike me as odd at best.

and romans with their gods , ....who did not like jews neither ,
intresting , later rome became the center for the christians , ...

Panag you might keep in mind that many of the people on this thread don't think of Jesus as the Christ. He would have to be the Messiah for that and he still hasn't met the specs. He has to rule Israel to meet the Messiah specs. Kind of hard for a dead person to do.

only the ones that have a different religion , ...
what i wanted to say is ; was jesus a semitist , afterall he rejected the way of culture , in short everything what had to do with the jews , ..........

i wonder , how many religous people here , and how many jewish , ......????

allas , have a nice day , huh , for some places , have a nice night

[Ethelred]

was jesus a semitist , afterall he rejected the way of culture , in short everything what had to do with the jews , ..........

There are no signs of Jesus actualy rejecting Jewish culture. He does appear to have been a bit radical regarding religion but there was a lot that going on at the time. As far as I have been able to tell its was Paul the promoted christianity among the gentiles. There seems to have been a bit of a disagreement on that with James. As in James the brother of Jesus. However I am no expert on that stuff I only come across it tangentaly when argueing religion.

Technicaly Semites are not just Jews. Many others in the Middle East are semetic. Genetic testing shows that even European Jews are still pretty closely related to Arabs.

i wonder , how many religous people here , and how many jewish , ......????

On this thread? I don't know. Clearly several are Jewish. Especially the guys with Israel marked as their location. Some are christian I think. I am Agnostic, raised Catholic. I suspect a lot of those on this thread are essentially Agnostic but I am not sure. This really isn't a religion thread anyway. Its more about culture and politics although its hard to seperate religion from politics in the Middle East. Which is one more reason to be glad my country chose to have a secular government.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ethelred


There are no signs of Jesus actualy rejecting Jewish culture. He does appear to have been a bit radical regarding religion but there was a lot that going on at the time. As far as I have been able to tell its was Paul the promoted christianity among the gentiles. There seems to have been a bit of a disagreement on that with James. As in James the brother of Jesus. However I am no expert on that stuff I only come across it tangentaly when argueing religion.

Technicaly Semites are not just Jews. Many others in the Middle East are semetic. Genetic testing shows that even European Jews are still pretty closely related to Arabs.



On this thread? I don't know. Clearly several are Jewish. Especially the guys with Israel marked as their location. Some are christian I think. I am Agnostic, raised Catholic. I suspect a lot of those on this thread are essentially Agnostic but I am not sure. This really isn't a religion thread anyway. Its more about culture and politics although its hard to seperate religion from politics in the Middle East. Which is one more reason to be glad my country chose to have a secular government.

The original catholic church began as a Jewish sect. Paul spread the gospel to the Syrians and the Greeks. However, at the time of the great fire in Rome very few gentiles were Christian. They were mostly still Jewish. When Nero rounded up the usual suspects, mainly the Jews, it is reported that the "orthodox" Jews pointed out the differences between themselves and the Christian Jews, and blamed the fire on the Christians. They were spared while Christian persecution began. This later was one of the causes of Christian hostility to Jews in the West.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
When Nero rounded up the usual suspects, mainly the Jews, it is reported that the "orthodox" Jews pointed out the differences between themselves and the Christian Jews, and blamed the fire on the Christians. They were spared while Christian persecution began. This later was one of the causes of Christian hostility to Jews in the West.

Ned

I hadn't heard that one. I had heard the hostility started over Jews being the moneylenders because some idiot in the church said christians couldn't loan money for interest. I suppose though that could be a cause as well. Rome was a firetrap anyway. Lots of five story apartment like buildings.

Nero needed to play Caesar III instead of musical instruments.

[S. Kroeze]

WARNING!!! THIS POST IS NOT MEANT TO BE READ BY SIKANDER
it might embarass his tender heart

Originally posted by Natan
The Zionists "neutralized the true Jews?" What exactly are "true Jews" and who made you the arbiter of Jewish identity?

Most people with some judgement would be able to define a "true Muslim" or a "true Roman Catholic". Someone who doesn't acknowledge the authority of the pope cannot be possibly considered a Catholic. ALL Muslims accept the Five Pillars of Faith.
I propose we listen to the opinion of "true Jews" themselves!

"Articles of Faith (ikkarim, Heb., 'roots') Formulations of Jewish belief. These are not as important as are creeds in Christianity, since every person born of a Jewish mother is automatically a Jew irrespective of religious conviction. The Shema‘, recited twice daily, is the fundamental Jewish article of faith. Philo spoke of eight basic principles, Hananel b. Hushi'el isolated four articles, and Maimonides set down thirteen principles. The latter are (i) God's existence; (ii) his unity; (iii) his lack of a physical body; (iv) his eternity; (v) his unique claim to divinity; (vi) the validity of prophecy; (vii) Moses' status as chief prophet; (viii) Moses' reception of the whole Torah; (ix) the completeness of Torah; (x) God's omniscience; (xi) reward and punishment; (xii) the coming of the Messiah; and (xiii) the resurrection of the dead. These thirteen principles became the basis of later formulations, including ani ma'amin of the Prayer Book, the 'ikkarim' of David Kokhavi, Hasdai Crescas 'Or Adonai (Light of the Lord), and Joseph Albo's Sefer ha-Ikkarim (Book of Roots). In the 12th cent., the Karaite Judah Hadassi produced ten articles of faith, and in the 19th cent., Moses Mendelssohn, the pioneer of modernism within Judaism within Judaism, identified three essential principles."

"Torah (Heb., 'teaching') The teachings of the Jewish religion. In the Pentateuch, the term 'Torah' can mean all the laws on a particular subject (e.g. Leviticus 7.2) or the summation of all laws (e.g. Deuteronomy 4.44). It is also used to refer to the Pentateuch in contrast to the Prophets and Hagiography (as in Tanach), and later a distinction was made between the written and the oral law. Although the rabbis taught that 'Moses received the Torah from Sinai', they also taught that it was in existence before the creation of the world, and R.Akiva declared it to have been 'the precious instrument by which the world was created'. Rav Hoshaiah equated it with Wisdom described in the Book of Proverbs, and Philo, in his discussion of the logos (word of God), identified the logos with Torah. These conjectures were the source of much discussion among such later Jewish philosophers as Sa‘adiah Gaon, Abraham ibn Ezra and Maimonides. The purpose of Torah is to make Israel 'a kingdom of priests, a holy nation' (Deuteronomy 33.4), and much Hebrew poetry is concerned with the sweetness and joy entailed in keeping it (e.g. Psalms 19 and 119). None the less, the message of the Torah is for all humanity, and 'a pagan who studies the Torah is like a High Priest'. In a famous exchange Hillel summarized Torah in the maxim, 'What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow' (B.Shab. 31a), and Akiva maintained that its overriding principle was 'Love your neighbour as yourself' (Leviticus 19.18). Maimonides laid down in his thirteen principles of the Jewish faith that Torah is immutable and that it was given in its entirety to Moses. The belief in the divine origin of both the written and oral Torah remains the touchstone of Orthodox Judaism. The Karaites accepted the written, but not the oral law, while the Progressive movements tend to distinguish between the moral and ritual law."

"Halakhah (Heb., from halak, 'he went') A particular law or the whole Jewish legal system. The halakhah is traditionally believed to go back in its entirety to Moses. According to Maimonides, 'In the two Talmuds and the Tosefta, the Sifra and the Sifrei, in all these are explained the permitted and the forbidden... ..as handed down from person to person from the mouth of Moses our teacher at Sinai.' The halakhah is composed of the written law (the six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Pentateuch), the statements handed down by tradition (such as the words of the prophets and the hagiography, the oral law (which includes interpretations of the written law), the sayings of the scribes, and established religious customs. Written law is Torah she-bi-khetav, oral law is Torah she-be‘al peh ('.... by mouth'). In the days of the second Temple, a major point at issue between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was the validity of the oral law -the Sadducees adhering only to the written law. Even among the Pharisees, the schools of Hillel and Shammai differed in their interpretation of the biblical law and in their oral rulings. Various attempts were made to draw up collections of rulings. At the end of the 2nd cent. CE, however, R.Judah ha-Nasi summarized the legal debates in a form that came to be regarded as authoritative, and this record of the final decisions of the tannaim now constitutes Mishnah. Once this text was established, further debate centred on its meaning and interpretations; these discussions of the Palestinian and Babylonian amoraim are recorded in the two Talmuds. In the Middle Ages and subsequently halakhah was codified. The final decisions of the Talmud and further responsa were collected in such volumes as Maimonides' Mishneh Torah (Second Law) and Joseph Caro's Shulhân Arukh (The Laid Table). The Shulhân Arukh in particular became so authoritative that there was a marked reluctance to depart from its rulings.

The acceptance of the yoke of halakhah is seen by many as the distinctive essence of Judaism. According to the Orthodox, halakhah is God-given and must be obeyed. The Progressive movements, while reverencing the halakhah, do not accept its binding obligation in every aspect of life. In so doing, Progressive Jews are perceived by their Orthodox co-religionists as rejecting the point and purpose of the tradition. Hence Reform rabbis are not accepted, and Reform proselytes are not believed to be Jews. Thus it is their unconditional adherence to halakhah, that Orthodox Jews define themselves and their commitment."

"Orthodox Judaism Traditional Judaism. The term 'Orthodoxy' was first applied in Judaism in 1795 as a distinction between those who accepted the written and oral law as divinely inspired and those who identified with the Reform movement. The Orthodox believe that they are the sole practitioners of the Jewish religious tradition and regard non-Orthodox rabbis as laypeople and non-Orthodox proselytes as gentiles. Orthodoxy involves submission to the demands of the halakhah as enshrined in the written and oral law and in the subsequent codes and responsa. Within Orthodoxy, some authorities have retained a position of isolation, detaching their followers from the temptations and perils of the modern secular world, while others have tried to espouse openness to modern culture while insisting on the binding character of halakhah. The traditional Orthodox way of life has been under threat in W.Europe since the haskalah, and in E.Europe it was undermined by emigration and Zionism in the early 20th cent. and ultimately destroyed by the Holocaust. None the less, Orthodox communities continue to exist, particularly in Israel, the USA, W.Europe and the British Commonwealth."
(source: 'The Oxford Dictionary of World religions' ed. J.Bowker,1997)

The least one cay say is that the position of the Orthodox is clear and univocal. Yet since you seem to object to me making a choice, I suggest that you pronounce your preference.
I assume you will realise the consequences of your choice for the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

While the way the Labor Zionists treated the Sephardim was shameful, the Sephardim are themselves Zionists. Half of Israel's population is religious or of Sephardi origin. If they were anti-Zionist, there would be no country.

Perhaps some (or many) Sephardim gradually learnt to accept the inevitable. In 1896 they had opposed both the territorial AND the political goals of Zionists, because they feared that Jewish immigration would disturb their relations with both Moslem and Christian neighbours.

I used the word 'neutralized'; I could also have said 'marginalized'. Until 1917 they held a dominant position. My source -see previous extensive quote, a.o. about Eliezer Ben-Yehuda- shows they, Arab Jews with by far the longest presence in the region- did originally oppose Zionism violently. You have NOT succeeded in refuting Idinopulos or B.Thomas, who basically tell the same story.
I do not have the source at hand, but in the Royal Library I perused an Encyclopaedia that estimated Orthodox Jews in Israel at 14%. Not impressive!

Would you prefer Antarctican theocracy?

I would prefer a world where Muslims, Jews AND Europeans would not fight one another to the finish, because of some small, inhospitable piece of desert. When they would contest Tuscany or South Africa it would be easier to understand. Only for Jews who follow the commands of halakhah does it make sense to desire to live in this waste.

So I think your view of Israel as a European-Secular colony set as a dagger in the heart of the Arab world by the Jewish leaders and Crusaders needs revision.

On account of your consistent description of Muslims and Arabs as warlike and hostile, it seems you DO acknowledge the fact that they do not like some alien element in their midst.
You also agree with me that Israel is NOT a theocracy. Or would you defend the position that present-day Israel is 'a kingdom of priests, a holy nation'?

Do you deny the fact that about 90% of all Zionists came out of Europe?
Do you deny the fact that decisions made by Britain and the U.S. were decisive for the creation of Israel?
I can understand that it may be unpleasant for you to admit that decisions of Christian politicians -those jolly Nazis came all from pious Catholic families, apart from Göring and Hess- as a rule have a profound influence in this world. Neither do I generally like the results.

To illustrate my argument I will give another quotation from 'my guy'. When you can recommend some study about millenarianism, please do! You seemed to have doubts about 'my guy'.

"The Western penetration of Palestine from the early nineteenth century through the period of Muhammed Ali's rule was spurred by an extraordinary burst of Christian religious energy in Britain, known as millenarianism. This was the belief that only after the Jews returned to their ancestral homeland would Jesus return to earth to inaugurate the thousand-year reign of God over the world.

The opening of the British vice-consulate(1838) particularly had profound religious consequences. A few months after Palmerston had made the decision to do so, Anthony Ashley Cooper (later Lord Shaftesbury), who was his stepson and a devout Christian millenarian, sought to persuade the foreign secretary that government support of the Jewish restoration to Palestine would hasten Christ's Coming as well as serving British interests.

Palmerston, who had little use for religious arguments and scarcely any mystical feeling about Palestine, quickly recognized the wisdom of his stepson's advice. With the loyal support of a substantial minority of Jews in Palestine, Britain might compete favorably in the region with Catholic France and Orthodox Russia. For years, under the trade agreements with the Ottoman government called Capitulations, France had exercised protection for pilgrims and other Roman Catholics living in the Holy Land, while Russia had done the same for Orthodox pilgrims and the twenty thousand Arab members of the Greek Orthodox church.(13) No doubt both France and Russia used their priviliged positions to advance their own national interests in Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East. Britain, a Protestant nation, had no such privileged position. This might change if Britain would "adopt" the Jewish nation and urge its return to the ancestral homeland. The newly opened vice-consulate might in fact use its offices to facilitate the Jewish resotration. Thus almost eighty years before the Balfour Declaration of 1917 pledging British government support of a Jewish national home in Palestine, a powerful and fateful British-Jewish connection was formed in the country.(14)"

(13)Mordechai Eliav, Britain and the Holy Land, 1838-1914 (Jerusalem,1997), 15
(14) See Mayir Vereté, "Why Was a British Consulate Established in Jerusalem?" in Norman Rose, ed., From Palmerston to Balfour: Collected Essays of Mayir Vereté (London, 1992)

(source: Thomas A.Idinopulos: "Weathered by Miracles",1998)

By the way Natan, do you submit to ALL six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Pentateuch?
Why would you be a more objective arbiter of Jewish identity?

What is -in your view- the nationality of a French Jew?
The people that were systematically slaughtered during the Holocaust were -at least in my view- Germans, Poles, Russians etc.. Or would you defend the thoroughly racist view that people with ancestors from another part of the world -black, Semitic, Indian or Mongoloid- are not able to lay claim to full civil rights and equal legal protection by law?
I hope not?

Here is the view of Montagu, a non-Orthodox and British politician, in 1917 to show you that ALSO among non-Orthodox opposition to Zionism was fierce:
"There is no Jewish race now as a homogeneous whole. It is quite obvious that the Jews in Great Britain are as remote from the Jews in Morocco or the black Jews in Cochin as the Christian Englishman is from the Moor or the Hindoo"
(source: D.Vital: 'Zionism: the crucial phase',1987)

"Montagu, a British Jew and anti-Zionist, objected: "I assume that it means that Mohammedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews... ..you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best country... ..Palestine will become the world's Ghetto."(5) He argued further, (a) that racist concepts like the 'Jewish people' would impair the rights of Jews in their home countries by implying that Jews are a people apart and (b) that the pushing of Christians and Moslems out of Palestine would be grounds for increased anti-Semitism around the world. Montefiore also objected to Zionist phrases about 'Jewish nationality' and 'Jewish race' as typical anti-Semitic thinking."

Great Britain, Public Records Office, Cab. No. 24/24 (August 23, 1917). Cited by W.T.Mallison, Jr. "The Balfour Declaration: An Appraisal in International Law," in Transformation of Palestine. Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, ed. (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1971), 74-6

(source: B.Thomas: 'How Israel Was Won',1999)

I, an agnostic, am a quite neutral observer, though I will admit I have much sympathy for Buddhism, and some for Confucianism. Happily those religions are NO party in the history of this region.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I hadn't heard that one. I had heard the hostility started over Jews being the moneylenders because some idiot in the church said christians couldn't loan money for interest. I suppose though that could be a cause as well. Rome was a firetrap anyway. Lots of five story apartment like buildings.

Nero needed to play Caesar III instead of musical instruments.

I have discussed this with a Jewish friend of mine who confirms that it happened.

Ned

[Dom Pedro II]

Hmm, I just happened to stumble upon this thread... I haven't been around the OT for a while now. I continue raging an off-topic debate in the Civ3 - Play the World forum

Anyway, with regards to the question of an Israeli homeland, I am very much in favor of having a place for the Jews (especially in the place where their culture originated from), however, like any good libertarian I am somewhat cautious about combining religion and the state. I don't like that the Arab countries do it, and it doesn't thrill me that Israel does it as well (although its a democratic government, I realize).

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Hmm, I just happened to stumble upon this thread... I haven't been around the OT for a while now. I continue raging an off-topic debate in the Civ3 - Play the World forum

Anyway, with regards to the question of an Israeli homeland, I am very much in favor of having a place for the Jews (especially in the place where their culture originated from), however, like any good libertarian I am somewhat cautious about combining religion and the state. I don't like that the Arab countries do it, and it doesn't thrill me that Israel does it as well (although its a democratic government, I realize).

Dom, I am not so sure that Israel is a religious state. It certainly, though, wants to maintain open immigration for Jews so that Israel will remain a place of refuge. This is why it cannot agree to live in a country with an Arab majority that could change this basic law. Ned