Anti-zionism is anti-semitism?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, I was testing your point about tolerance. When the Portuguese pulled out in '75, Indonesia invaded. Indonesia is Moslem. East Timor is Catholic.

A rebellion began that culminated in a referendum in 1999. The people chose freedom by an overwhelming majority. Indonesian militias began a massacre. Australia intervened to put a stop to the violence.

Yesterday, E. Timor was declared a state.

Tolerence here was out of the question. Violence continued so long as Indonesia continued its occupation. It seems to me that E. Timor had a right to self-determination.

Ned

I mixed up the countries. Did you notice I mentioned rebels? That was because I was thinking about the mess in Sri Lanka.

Tolerance is still a better answer in cases where the people are not seperable. Indonesia is quite unlike the Middle East. Its many islands not a contiguous state.

[S. Kroeze]

quote:
"Right, and IMHO, (some will disagree) Orthodox Judaism is the Judaism which was practiced for some 1500-2000 years before the other sects showed up, and is therefore the real deal."

This is utter nonsense.

Orthodox Judaism sprung about in the 1700s in eastern europe, as a reaction to the springing reformation and liberalization movements in western europe.

The Orthosox Judaism, insists on keeping things the way they were in the 1700, claiming like the catholic church, that the scriptures are sacred and shouldn't be touched.

This is an anti-thesis to all the great scholars which rose to

The Talmud itself says that after the Bible has left God's hands (so to speak) it is the people's to interpert and to have opinions about.

And the Orthodox are saying that no opinions are allowed, and only their conservative view is legitimate.

Again, don't talk about things that you have no idea about.

Dear Sirotnikov,

This post of you only shows you are a most inaccurate reader. The statement I quoted was made by Natan.
For the moment I suggest you continue the discussion with Natan, though he is -in your opinion at least- completely incompetent.

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

PS: I understand it is difficult for you to accept you are not a 'true Jew' by his (and mine) definition.
By the way, your utterances show a lot of contempt for people who take their religion seriously.
You are probably an apostate?

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Natan
Arguing that anyone who doesn't accept the Halakha isn't Jewish is absurd, because the Halakha defines a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or converted in accordance with the Halakha - so by your definition, to be a Jew means to be wrong about what it means to be a Jew, since a Jew who accepts the Halakha believes that Jewish apostates are Jews. In short, you're argument is totally absurd.

A question:
According to this same halakhah, should someone, whose mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of himself/herself was a Jewish woman observing all six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Pentateuch, be considered a Jew -though ALL his/her other ancestors were non-Jewish?

[Rogan Josh]

I am interested in Ned's opinion on the native American Indians: should they, in your opinion, be given a nation state for themselves? If so, which US state would you pick?

I find myself agreeing with Ethel (for a change ) that one should build on tolerance, not balkanization. It is wrong of any counry to discriminate against people on the basis of ethnicity or religion, so it is wrong for any nation to be exclusively for one ethnic group or religion.

It isn't really a case of people being anti-semitic or even anti-zionist, but merely a reaction to Israel being anti-everyone else....

[Saint Marcus]

I am interested in Ned's opinion on the native American Indians: should they, in your opinion, be given a nation state for themselves?

Yes

Aren't the Canadians working on that too? I seem to recall something along the lines of an Inuit state or something.

[Ned]

Rogan, The Native Americans are separate self-governing nations. The problem we had co-existing for so long was the fact that the Native Americans were a migratory/hunting culture. This is fundamentally incompatible with a farm-based civilization.

The Native Americans live on reservations and are supported by the United States. Other than that, they have their own self government.

Ned

[Natan]

S. Kroeze:

A question:
According to this same halakhah, should someone, whose mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of the mother of himself/herself was a Jewish woman observing all six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Pentateuch, be considered a Jew -though ALL his/her other ancestors were non-Jewish?

Yes, absolutely and 100%. And if every one of your ancestors was a Jew except for your mother's mother's mothers' etc. who was not Jewish, then you are not Jewish.

Rogan, Ramo: Here's what I don't get - Israel is a democracy. It has civil rights and religious freedom; no one is stoned for violations of religious, the press is more or less free, women have equal rights, etc. Yet somehow people seem to fixate on Israel as somehow a roadblock to tolerance and democracy when it's neighbors and regional enemies are so clearly the greater threat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rogan, Ramo: Here's what I don't get - Israel is a democracy. It has civil rights and religious freedom; no one is stoned for violations of religious, the press is more or less free, women have equal rights, etc. Yet somehow people seem to fixate on Israel as somehow a roadblock to tolerance and democracy when it's neighbors and regional enemies are so clearly the greater threat.

Can't change the neighbors (at least not easily). So why not focus on the one that is a democracy? Hope that public opinion or whatever leads to more tolerance? It is much easier than trying to force democracy on authoritarian regimes that are just going to say no.

[Kropotkin]

Also, to add a little note to Imrans, Israel is a democracy, the areas the country occupies aren't.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Can't change the neighbors (at least not easily).

Why is it that economic sanctions on Israel are good, but sanctions on Iraq and Syria are bad?

So why not focus on the one that is a democracy?

The problem with this is that the same people who are howling for Israel's blood are arguing that it isn't a Democracy.

Hope that public opinion or whatever leads to more tolerance?

So that's why you support Palestinian terrorism? Because it will lead to more tolerance on the part of Israelis?

It is much easier than trying to force democracy on authoritarian regimes that are just going to say no.

So we should focus our efforts where they will meet less resistance rather than where they are actually needed? By this logic we should have focused on the racist German law of return in the 1970s instead of oppression in the USSR. Many more people are being killed in Sudan than in Israel; human rights are much more severely curtailed for Palestinians in Lebanon than those in Israel; Iraqi Shi'ites face a much nastier regime than Palestinians - where's the outcry?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Dear Sirotnikov,

This post of you only shows you are a most inaccurate reader. The statement I quoted was made by Natan.
For the moment I suggest you continue the discussion with Natan, though he is -in your opinion at least- completely incompetent.

It doesn't matter whether you quoted Natan or Neturei Karta or whomever.

To claim that the orthodox movement or it's exact way of deciphering the Bible and the additional books, exists for 1700 years is sheer nonsense.

Right under my nose there are eastern jews, who existed 1700 years ago and lived together with now orthodox Jews, and they see the Torah in a different light.

PS: I understand it is difficult for you to accept you are not a 'true Jew' by his (and mine) definition.

a) Natan himself said that you are misunderstanding him.

b) I don't care the slightest bit about your particular opinion about judaism or whether I am jewish or not. I have forgotten more things about Judaism than you will learn if you will try to convert.

By the way, your utterances show a lot of contempt for people who take their religion seriously.

As I was saying, you choose to take an ethnical group of people, strip them of identity and claim that the only thing that seporates them from the rest of the people of the world is thier religion?

When you learn the slightest about the connection between nations and religions in the ancient middle east, you will understand that each nation had it's own religion. The Jewish faith is unique in that it has preserved itself as mainly a faith of a certain nation - the Jewish / Hebrew / Judean / Israeli nation. Call it as you will.

Just because you took Judiasm 101 doesn't give you any status.

You are probably an apostate?

You are probably an atheist?

[Natan]

Siro is a Jew 100%, every bit as much as Moses or the Lubavitcher Rebbe (z"l) - this holds true no matter what Siro does in his life.

[Sirotnikov]

Yes, absolutely and 100%. And if every one of your ancestors was a Jew except for your mother's mother's mothers' etc. who was not Jewish, then you are not Jewish

I think that that is nonsense.

It all comes down to the first two biblical Jews in the world - Abraham and Sara. Now, their son, Itzhak, married a non-jew. Does that makes each one of his sons not jewish?

Ruth, grandmother (?) of king David was moavite. Is he not Jewish? Is Solomon not Jewish?

My point is that through out history Jews have broke the Halacha rules:

1) We accepted non jews into the faith (think of egypt, think of the events leading to the babylonian diaspora)
2) We never fully abided to the 613 rules (think of the events leading to each diaspora, when we had so much sin in Israel and Judea)

How did one become a jew in ancient times?
Step 1: marrying a jew - it didn't matter whether the mother or the father was jewish.
Step 2: integrating into the jewish society and ethnicity - ie: observing jewish faith, keeping jewish nationality and marrying only [mostly] with jews.

Therefore, I think that while a convertee can't be considered ethnically a Jew (or hebrew or what ever) his grandson, assuming he and his son married jews, can be considered jewish. After all, he is 75% Jewish.

In any case, I think that we should widen up the definition a bit. we've been such a closed society for a good period of years, and it's time we open up and recruit new ranks again.

I do however agree in one point with the orthodox - if one wants to become a jew by means of conversion, it should be made sure that he is doing it out of true love, not out of short term gain (getting a right to become an israeli, getting some protection from jewish communities... what do I know)

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Natan
Siro is a Jew 100%, every bit as much as Moses or the Lubavitcher Rebbe (z"l) - this holds true no matter what Siro does in his life.

Btw, I don't recall where do you come from, from europe?

I had orthodox ancestors in Lethuania (sp?) in the 19th century.

And I had (probably reform ) ancestors in Germany in the 19th century.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Hebrew is not an ethnic grouping. Its a language. One that was pretty much dead for a very long time. When the Romans had their hissy fit with Judea most of the inhabitants spoke Aramaic and Hebrew was mostly a religious language somewhat akin to Latin after the Italians stopped being Romans.

I think you are losing your point in semantics.

There is an ethnic group associated with the hebrew language and the jewish faith, which is unique, although close to the palestinians and syrians.

I call it "Jews".
Imran calls it "Hebrews".

In any case, I'm sure this won't be a first time when an ethnic group is named after a language (the word semite rings a bell? )