quote:

---

Does this mean that you no longer find the notion of a Jewish state acceptable?

"It can't work anymore. To define the State of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end. A Jewish state is explosive. It's dynamite."

And a Jewish-democratic state?

"People find this very comfortable. It's lovely. It's schmaltzy. It's nostalgic. It's retro. It gives a sense of fullness. But 'Jewish-democratic' is nitroglycerine." [...]

Do we have to amend the Law of Return?

"We have to open the discussion. The Law of Return is an apologetic law. It is the mirror image of Hitler. I don't want Hitler to define my identity." [...]

"I see the European Union as a biblical utopia. I don't know how long it will hold together, but it is amazing. It is completely Jewish."

---

Read the whole interview in Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper.

[ 04 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

"Ahad Ha'am made the charge against Herzl that his whole Zionism had its source in anti-Semitism. He thought of something else, of Israel as a spiritual center - the Ahad Ha'am line has not died, and now its time has come. Our confrontational Zionism vis-a-vis the world is disastrous."

---

I have always been attracted to Ahad Ha'am. The open question is whether Israel as a spiritual centre is possible without a military outer ring protecting that cultural centre from those who don't want it there at all.

The author also talks a lot about Zionism being the mirror image of Hitlerism, because of the exclusivity of the concept of a "Jewish" state.

This is mostly rhetoric. Many countries define themselves by ethnicity and exhibit hostility to their ethnicity and its traditions being watered down by immigration or otherwise. One could as well refer to contemporary Argentina or Hungary, instead of Hitler for this idea.

Just as American black nationalism of the Stokeley Carmichael-Malcolm X variety was the mirror image of American slavery and racism, Israeli Zionism is a response to Hitlerian racism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

I have always been attracted to Ahad Ha'am. The open question is whether Israel as a spiritual centre is possible without a military outer ring protecting that cultural centre from those who don't want it there at all.

---

Ahad Ha'am did not proselytize for Jewish emigration to Palestine, nor did he consider that Jews could not live among the nations. On the contrary, his working assumption was that the mass of Jewry would always live among the nations, while Palestine - gradually and by dint of example - would attract an intellectual elite so that it could become a true "or la'goyim".

We can agree to disagree, but IMO Ahad Ha'am would have been horrified at the ethnocentric militarist aggressive pro-U.S. enclave that has absconded with the ideals of his movement.

quote:

---

The author also talks a lot about Zionism being the mirror image of Hitlerism, because of the exclusivity of the concept of a "Jewish" state.

---

Not just, and not even primarily, the "exclusivity". Herzlian Zionism shared with Hitlerism the notion that Jews could not live among the nations. The solutions were different.

quote:

---

[I]t is similarly important to understand that Zionism was a national liberation movement of the Jews. If the author includes that perspective also, his book would be worth contemplating.

---

quote:

---

The Jews were not and are not a "nation" in need of "liberation". I am a Jew, and your suggestion implies that I am not part of the Canadian people into which I was born.

---

It's not my suggestion. It is the basic theory of Zionism that Jews are a nation.

The birth to Israel occurred at a time when Jews were certainly in need of something, though whether we call it "liberation" or "protection" is a matter of taste.

Often, national liberation movements celebrate victory when they achieve control of a nation-state, and in that way, too, Zionism was a national liberation movement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

I'm not sure why you think defining Jews as a nation excludes you from being fully Canadian. I think of Quebec as a nation, and immigrant minorities also have a national identification which doesn't make them any less than Canadian once they become established here.

---

Jews are not a nation. They share a religious background and some of the tradition and culture that that has produced (albeit very different in different parts of the world). They have no common language and no common territory. They lack all the ingredients of nationality which your "immigrant minorities" and Québec (and Aboriginal nations) have.

Whatever Jews are, they don't need "national liberation". All they need is religious freedom and freedom from persecution, discrimination and murder. One theory of how to get there - in the 19th century, for the first time in Jewish history - was the brand of Zionism which promoted a migration to Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish "homeland" (in some versions) or "state" (a 20th century invention).

If it makes you rest easier, I am glad to amend my comment to say that Zionism is the Liberation Movement of the Jewish People, leaving out the word "national" in its entirety.

To me, the bottom line is that Israel was created to protect Jews others could not be relied upon to protect them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
To me, the bottom line is that Israel was created to protect Jews others could not be relied upon to protect them.

---

I think you can get far too schematic though by trying to define a nation. The Bolsheviks argued there was no Jewish nation in Russia because they had no territory - schematically they tried to resolve this by "creating" a Jewish territory - it was initially going to be in the Crimea but when locals objected what became Biro-bidzhan in Siberia was chosen. Thousands of Jewish "pioneers" went there voluntarily in the 1920s (perhaps less voluntarily in the 1930s) but it didn't take and the "Jewish Republic" remains only as an historical curiosity.

I think it's true that "Israelis" (meaning in this case Jews in Israel) have become a nation - not only through territory but also through a common language and culture (both of which are actually distinct from what is seen in the Diaspora) and so I think Israeli Jews do have "national rights" though I don't think these can displace or be prioritized over Palestinian national rights.

Fundamentally what defines a nation, I think, is not schematic criteria but "national consciousness". If a people consider themselves a nation then they are. If they do not, regardless of what criteria of a nation they meet, they are not.

Whether Jews were a nation or not in the early 20th century depends on which Jews you were talking about in which country at what time and often of what class.

quote:

---

The Jews were not and are not a "nation" in need of "liberation". I am a Jew, and your suggestion implies that I am not part of the Canadian people into which I was born.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
This thread is about Jews - my people...

---

As you see, your last statement, above, actually speaks against your premise of:

quote:

---

The Jews were not and are not a "nation" in need of "liberation". I am a Jew, and your suggestion implies that I am not part of the Canadian people into which I was born.

---

You referred to Jews as "your people", now do you mean Jews are a "people" who comprise a nation, but which in not in need of liberation? Or do you mean Jews are not a nation, therefore they do not need liberation?

Because the use of "my people" actually denotes a nation centered thinking process.

Jews are Jews because of a shared belief structure that is a mosiac based faith, that denotes a broadly structured culture. In essence, there should not be a "my people" attached to a developed culture based upon religious structures.

Christians do not go around saying "my people", for example when identifying themselves with other Christians around the world, nor do Buddists, nor actually do Muslims, or indeed Mormans or even Jehovah Witness.

"My people" really does denote nationship thinking in regards to those of a shared culture which is based upon religion and its practises.

And there the cognative dissonance lies. I know I have it, even though only one half of my family were "Jewish", you obviously have it, as does Avrum Burg.

Mycroft outlined this with his:

quote:

---

what defines a nation, I think, is not schematic criteria but "national consciousness". If a people consider themselves a nation then they are. If they do not, regardless of what criteria of a nation they meet, they are not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Or do you mean Jews are not a nation, therefore they do not need liberation?

---

Correct. Jews are not a nation, and they do not need national liberation - which means the right to determine how to govern themselves.

I already explained what Jews need above; sorry to repeat myself:

quote:

---

Whatever Jews are, they don't need "national liberation". All they need is religious freedom and freedom from persecution, discrimination and murder.

---

All Jews need that, no matter where they live.

Besides those things, they need exactly the same things as the other members of their nations (Canada, Iran, France, China, etc.).

They do not need a Jewish government or Jewish state or Jewish "homeland".

Likewise, Christians do not need a Christian government or Christian state or Christian "homeland".

Judaism is a religion - except that because of its unique historical evolution, including persecution, even Jews who abandon the religious part often continue to refer to themselves as Jews and retain some of the cultural traditions (which vary radically and unrecognizably from one region of the world to another, as aka Mycroft has suggested).

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I hear, undertsand and agree with what you say, but I refer you back to your use of "my people" and mycroft's statement.

---

Look, I don't want to belabour the point, but the only reason I said "my people" in that post was to stop the thread drift toward African-Americans. I meant no more than feminists who call women "sisters" or LGBT people who express solidarity with each other or workers who call each other "sister and brother" or students or farmers or...