MOD ALERT ~ Israel's Weapons of Mass Destruction ?

Drew , I now find IN FACT there;s really no such thing as an "Israeli Nation"

Once again I repeat , that nothing is ever as simple as a simpleton would believe it to be .

READ AND LEARN :


"The Israeli Interior Ministry recognizes 126 nations, but not the Israeli nation. An Israeli citizen can be registered as belonging to the Assyrian, the Tatar or the Circassian nation. But the Israeli nation? Sorry, no such thing.

According to the official doctrine, the State of Israel cannot recognize an “Israeli” nation because it is the state of the “Jewish” nation. In other words, it belongs to the Jews of Brooklyn, Budapest and Buenos Aires, even though these consider themselves as belonging to the American, Hungarian or Argentine nations.


Messy? Indeed.

THIS MESS started 113 years ago, when the Viennese Journalist Theodor Herzl wrote his book “The State of the Jews”. (That’s the true translation. The generally used name “The Jewish State” DER JUDENSTAAT - is false and means something else.) For this purpose he had to perform an acrobatic exercise. One can say that he used a white lie.


Modern Zionism was born as a direct response to modern anti-Semitism. Not by accident, the term “Zionismus” came into being some 20 years after the term “Antisemitismus” was invented in Germany. They are twins.


In Europe and the Americas another modern term was flourishing: Nationalism. Peoples which had been living together for centuries under dynasties of Emperors and Kings wanted to belong to nation-states of their own. In Argentina, the USA, France and other countries, “national” revolutions took place. The idea infected almost all peoples, big, small and tiny, from Peru to Lithuania, from Colombia to Serbia. They felt a need to belong to the place and the people where they lived and died.

All these national movements were necessarily anti-Semitic, some more, some less, because the very existence of the Jewish Diaspora ran counter to their basic perceptions.

A Diaspora without a homeland, dispersed over dozens of countries, could not be reconciled with the idea of a homeland-rooted nation seeking uniformity.

Herzl understood that the new reality was inherently dangerous for the Jews.

In the beginning he cherished the idea of complete assimilation: all the Jews would be baptized and disappear in the new nations. As a professional writer for the theater, he even devised the scenario: all Viennese Jews would march together to St. Stephen’s cathedral and be baptized en masse.



When he realized that this scenario was a bit far-fetched, Herzl passed from the idea of individual assimilation to what may be called collective assimilation: if there is no place for the Jews in the new nations, then they should define themselves as a nation like all the others, rooted in a homeland of their own and living in a state of their own. This idea was called Zionism.


BUT THERE was a problem: a Jewish nation did not exist. The Jews were not a nation but a religious-ethnic community.


A nation exists on one level of human society, a religious-ethnic community on another. A “nation” is an entity living together in one country with a common political will. A “community” is a religious entity based on a common faith, which can live in different countries. A German, for example, can be Catholic or Protestant; a Catholic can be German or French.

These two types of entity have two different means of survival, much as different species in nature. When a lion is in danger, it fights, it attacks. For that purpose, nature has equipped it with teeth and claws. When a gazelle is in danger, it runs. Nature has given it quick legs. Every method is good, if it is effective. (If it were not effective, the species would not have survived to this day.)

When a nation is in danger, it stands and fights. When a religious community is in danger, it moves elsewhere. The Jews, more than any others, have perfected the art of escape. Even after the horrors of the Holocaust, the Jewish Diaspora has survived and now, two generations later, it is again flourishing.

IN ORDER to invent a Jewish nation, Herzl had to ignore this difference. He pretended that the Jewish ethnic-religious community was also a Jewish nation. In other words: contrary to all other peoples, the Jews were both a nation and a religious community; as far as Jews were concerned, the two were the same. The nation was a religion, the religion was a nation.

This was the “white lie”.

There was no other way: without it, Zionism could not have come into being. The new movement took the Star of David from the synagogue, the candlestick from the Temple, the blue-and-white flag from the prayer shawl. The holy land became a homeland. Zionism filled the religious symbols with secular, national content.

The first to detect the falsification were the Orthodox Rabbis. Almost all of them damned Herzl and his Zionism in no uncertain terms. The most extreme was the Rabbi of Lubavitch, who accused Herzl of destroying Judaism.

The Jews, he wrote, are united by their adherence to God’s commandments. Doctor Herzl wants to supplant this God-given bond with secular nationalism.

When Herzl originated the Zionist idea, he did not intend to found the “State of the Jews” in Palestine, but in Argentina. (Patagonia)

Even when writing his book, he devoted to the country only a few lines, under the headline “Palestine or Argentina?” However, the movement he created compelled him to divert his endeavors to the Land of Israel, and so the state came into being here.

When the State of Israel was founded and the Zionist dream realized, there was no further need for the “white lie”. After the building was finished, the scaffolding should have been removed. A real Israeli nation had come into being, there was no further need for an imaginary one.

THESE DAYS Israel’s largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, is running a TV ad showing selected past issues. The day the State of Israel was founded, the giant headline announced: “Hebrew State!”


“Hebrew”, not “Jewish”. And not by accident: at that time, the term “Jewish state” sounded decidedly strange. In the preceding years, people in this country had got used to making a clear distinction between “Jewish” and “Hebrew”, between matters that belonged to the Diaspora and those belonging to this country: Jewish Diaspora, Jewish language (Yiddish), Jewish Stetl, Jewish religion, Jewish tradition - but Hebrew language, Hebrew agriculture, Hebrew industries, Hebrew underground organizations, Hebrew policemen.

If so, why do the words “Jewish state” appear in our Declaration of Independence? There was a simple reason for that: the UN had adopted a resolution to partition the country between an “Arab state” and a “Jewish state”. That was the legal basis of the new state. The declaration, which was drafted in haste, said therefore that we were establishing “the Jewish state (according to the UN resolution), namely the State of Israel”.


The building was finished, but the scaffolding was not taken down. On the contrary: it became the most important part of the building and dominates its facade


LIKE MOST of us at the time, David Ben-Gurion believed that Zionism had supplanted religion and that religion had become redundant.

He was quite sure that it would shrivel and disappear by itself in the new secular state. He decided that we could afford to dispense with the military service of Yeshiva bochers (Talmud school students), believing that their number would dwindle from a few hundred to almost none. The same thought caused him to allow religious schools to continue in existence. Like Herzl, who promised to “keep our Rabbis in the synagogues and our army officers in the barracks”, Ben-Gurion was certain that the state would be entirely secular.that the Jewish Diaspora would continue to exist.

In his view, only the citizens of the new state would henceforth be called “Jews”, all other Jews in the world would assimilate in their various nations and disappear from view.

BUT THE “white lie” of Herzl had results he did not dream of, as did the compromises of Ben-Gurion. Religion did not wither away in Israel, but on the contrary: it is gaining control of the state. The government of Israel does not speak of the nation-state of the Israelis who live here, but of the “nation-state of the Jews” – a state that belongs to the Jews all over the world, most of whom belong to other nations.


The religious schools are eating up the general education system and are going to overpower it, if we don’t become aware of the danger and assert our Israeli essence. Voting rights are about to be accorded to Israelis residing abroad, and this is a step towards giving the vote to all Jews around the world. And, most important: the ugly weeds growing in the national-religious field – the fanatical settlers - are pushing the state in a direction that may lead to its destruction.

TO SAFEGUARD the future of Israel one has to start by removing the scaffolding from the building. In other words: burying the “white lie” of religion-equals-nation. The Israeli nation has to be recognized as the basis of the state.

If this principle is accepted, what will the future shape of Israel – within the Green Line - be like?

There are two possible models, and many variations between them.

Model A: the multi-national one. Almost all the citizens of Israel belong to one of two nations: the majority belongs to the Hebrew nation and a minority to the Palestinian-Arab nation. Each nation will enjoy autonomy in certain areas, such as culture, education and religion. Autonomy will not be territorial, but cultural (as Vladimie Ze’ev Jabotinsky proposed a hundred years ago for Czarist Russia). All will be united by Israeli citizenship and loyalty to the state. The inbuilt discrimination of the Arab minority will become a thing of the past, as well as the “demographic demon”.

Model B: the American one. The American nation is composed of all US citizens, and all US citizens constitute the American nation. An immigrant from Jamaica who acquires US citizenship automatically becomes a member of the American nation, an heir to George Washington and Abe Lincoln. All learn at school the same core program and the same history.

Which of the two models is preferable? In my view, Model B is much better. But it would depend on a dialogue between the Hebrew majority and the Arab minority.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1267293918

===## AFAI can tell - The pseudo "Jewish" majority will continue remaining indifferent to the rights of the Arab minority.

.

 

I agree up to the part Herzel "invented" the Jewish nation - and up till that I see nothing wrong in the events, if you have any criticsm about it, do let me know,


Nation (Oxford dic) - "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory"
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nation

The Jewish ppl have common history, culture, language (Yiddish and Ladino are based on Hebrew) and were orginated from Judea which they are called after.

Herzel had no problems to define Jews as a nation, he had a problem to convince other coutries to recognize them as such but had some success in that eventually, the religion was called after the ppl that lived in Judea, Yehudim are the ppl of Yehuda-Judea.

Hebrew was the ancient name of the ppl, that's how they are called in the Bible, the reason you read "Hebrew work" Hebrew policemen" etc' is because now, when the exiled ppl of Judea have returned to their ancient home they see a real connection to the ancient Hebrews, no more exiled Judeans but the Hebrew nation while Jews from all around came to Israel. the Jews sticked as a nation because of the UN, and from that the scroll of indipendance that defined the state

as for the 2 options, I think we are light years away from it, you simply forgot about Arab nationalism......

 

Then why on earth did you ask why I was hated if you don't know if I am or not and by possibly whom I might be?

You said, out of the blue I might add;

"btw - Have you ever stopped and tried to understand why you are "hated " ?"

Member States of the United Nations

You will note that the United Nations is not called the 'United Nations and Assyrian, the Tatar or the Circassian nation.

 

DrewBedson, et al,

OK, I'm lost.

(COMMENT)

What are we talking about here? What are we driving at?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Marlowe asked me our of the blue for no apparent reason why I was hated and, I said I had no idea I was hated and said there really was no reason for people to hate me as I was white Anglican to which he then replied the above and the rest is what you know.

He also said that Israel was not a country or nation to which I posted the UN list of member states which, according to the UN, and, it's name (Nations) one must be a nation to be a member which Israel is.

Ergo, Israel is a nation, country and a member state of the UN and his contention that it is not a nation or country is of course, false.

 

You are not going to reply post # 302 are you....

Classic Marlow evasion

 

Read and learn :

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/...ery/1267293918
.....

 

----- Already dealt with - See my post #299.

Zzzzzzzzz..................

....

 

Please just Ignore the deliberate dishonest distortions


see this :


http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/...ery/1267293918



cheers.

 

The above comment speaks for itself and the fact that like Mr. Napier you continue to use this thread as a pretext not to discuss Israeli nuclear policies but to engage in baiting and inflammatory comments designed to incite hatred against Jews.

 

DrewBedson, et al,

Ah, the variation on the theme of "borders."

(COMMENT)

Yes, I have to agree; although I don't quite know how it could be argued otherwise. The State of Israel (SoI) is a nation (almost to funny to even argue): Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations via A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949. Israel's application (S/1093 29 November 1948) was favorably recommended to the General Assembly by the UN Security Council via S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 4 March 1949.

Coincidentally, the State of Palestine (SoP) is also a nation; having Declared Independence (A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988). The SoP was recognized by the UN (A/RES/43/177 15 December 1988) that same year.

Even more odd, is that they both (SoI & SoP) use the same ignition guidance as the underwriting authority; General Assembly Resolution 181(II) (A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

In regards to 1 you have misquoted what I stated. I stated the Jewish identity is made up of many components of which religious beliefs are but one of them and even those religious beliefs vary depending on how Jews interpret the religion. Your attempt to suggest Jewish culture is only religious is nonsensical and simply reflects your ignorance of the Jewish identity and an attempt to deny what it is and impose your rigid false stereotype of the concept on me and other Jews let alone gentiles. Its laughable.

A debate goes on to this day in our community as to who a Jew is precisely because we define ourselves not just as a religion but as a culture, ethnicity, with political nationality and many other components. It is clear from your writing you reduce such issues to black and white but Judaism was never black or white-it constantly changes in colour something I don't think you can understand as your stereotypes are rigid and inflexible. Just in how we interpret our religion alone we range from humanist (atheist, agnostic), existential (life defined through struggling to create meaning in the face of absurdity, hatred, chaos,evil), Reconstructionist, Reform-Liberal, Conservative, Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox who do believe in state of Israel's right to exist, Ultra-Orthodox who do not believe in Israel's right to exist. To try portray Judaism and its culture as a fixed and rigid uniform religious belief is past absurd.

2-National Socialism as you throw it out to slur Zionism as Nazism reflects your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Zionism. National Socialism is in effect if we are to be politically correct Liberal. It believes the state establishes and regulates identity.

Zionism never did that or said that. It in effect stated, Israel would be a refuge for Jews escaping extinction-the state itself does not define Jews-that definition would remain at an individual level. The state did not and still does not define Jewish identity, each Israeli and each Jew does. The Rabbinical Courts who consist of Rabbias who have orthodox views, have attempted to use the Knesset through democratically elected members of that Knesset to push their definition of Judaism. They claim a Reform Jew such as myself or a Felashie Jew are not real Jews and must convert but the fact is the state of Israel would not define me by my religion alone. They could care less if I was atheist or Reform. What they define me as, is a Jew the same reason there are over 125 other nations including Ireland,Japan, Belgium, Gemany, China, Taiwan, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia, the Ukraine, who have laws of return that allow fast tracking of citizenship for people they consider descended from the identity they seek to protect through their state.

You have no clue what a Jew is otherwise you would not think it was defined by the state only protected by the state. You also have no clue as to what the Israeli Supreme Court has said about Jewish identity and why non Israeli Jews exist and are protected by that court and the very same state organs that protect Jewish Israelis.

3-Your comments about Stalin are probably the only thing you are even remotely accurate about. To start with had he not allowed over 80,000 Jewish Russians to leave for Israel they could not have survived the war the Arab League of Nations commenced in 1949 to wipe Jews out in the Middle East. More importantly though it was the Czech Republic that armed and trained the rag tag group of Jews of the Middle East.

Whether the Czech Republic could have done that without Stalin's permission is questionable. However to this day the Czech Republic has remained close to Israel and did not engage in the anti-semitic hatred of the Soviet Union during the cold war.

As for Stalin of course he supported the creation of Israel. Egypt, Iraq and Syria were Nazi states. Their Bath Parties were based on the Nazi party of Germany. To this day they goose step and use the uniforms of World War Two Germans. This is why so many of their citizens wore Hitler mustaches including Sadat and Nasser of Egypt.

The Mukbarat of Egypt, Syria,and Iraq and now used in many Arab nations is modelled on the Gestapo. Over 200,000 Nazis moved to Damascus, Syria, Cairo, Egypt and Baghdad, Iraq during and immediately after WW2 setting up and running their governments.

Stalin knew the Arab League of Nations consisted of Nazis, Nazi supporters and ironically the British who flew all of Egypt's Air Force, and headed the Jordanian Army.

When the Arab League of Nations invaded Palestine to wipe out Jews, it was led by British Generals, Colonels, and pilots.

Ironically British, American, Canadian world war two veterans, not all Jews,some in fact Christians,came to Palestine to fight with Jews.

Also ironically, and I doubt you have a clue, Muslims donated land and gave support to Jews, dying for their generosity.

Stalin initially supported Israel but when Israel made it clear it would not distance itself from the US, that is when Stalin turned on Israel. Israel was to be a Soviet puppet state in Stalin's eyes, but Israel was created because of the single handed war Elenor Roosevelt engaged in for 3 years to protect Jewish holocaust refugees demanding they have a place of their own and to this day Israel commemorates her and the US, in particular Truman for openly admitting he was anti-semitic, pro Saudi Arabian, but challenged himself and his views and reluctantly listened to
Roosevelt. Truman was so unpopular for supporting Israel, his Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs of Staff threatened to impeach him.

Stalin turned on Israel the moment they would not side with him.He did not support Israel as anything but a potential puppet state as much as you try revise that to mean Israel was Stalinist. Israel was never Stalinist or Marxist. Its version of the social collective was not communist-it did not see the state as controlling the means of production as Marxism did but the free markets determining the economic supply and demands of anything the collective could produce.

4-No. The fact you have a misunderstanding of what he Jewish identity is and how it is inter-related to the State of Israel does not mean your view is the only one. Your statement in 4 simply reflects you have a one way discussion and closed mind when you debate-you lecture but don't listen-you can't conceive of any opinion but yours.

5-Stalin never formed the Israeli government. In fact France built its government buildings, hydro-network, post office, and nuclear plant.

To this day the Israeli post office has French on it for that reason.

DeGaulles initially supported Israel then openly stated that since France got all the business it could out of Israel, it decided it would switch allegiance and alliance from Israel tot he Arab League to get more money from Arab contract opportunities. The French were open and blatant about their decision and it being based on money.

Coca Cola interestingly was black mailed by the Arab League who said, if they sold coke in Israel they could not sell it in the Arab world. Coke told the Arab League to shove it whereas Pepsi obeyed.

Interestingly Cadbury-Scheppes sold its soft drinks to both sides no problem. To understand Middle East history is to understand the co-relation of multi-nationals and not just the petroleum industry and how it influenced the foreign policy of so many nations dealing with all the countries of the Middle East.

The Middle East also became a proxy war with the Soviets trying to use Egypt, Iraq and Syria as puppet states to control the region while the US countered with Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Iran.

That proxy war still plays out.

Putting an exclamation mark on your comments does not make them any more credible. It simply shows you feel the need to shout. Why?

For someone who says I should chill out its ironic you end your coments with an !.

 

Hmmm. AFAI can tell , nothing , concerning /involving Jews is ever as straightforward as made out to be or as simple as some simpletons are ,,made to believe


See my post # 301 and :

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/...ery/1267293918


FYI - the author is Uri Avnery he is an Israeli former IDF soldier + Knesset member. I'll consider him to be far more knowledgeable on the subject than the combined Pro-Israel posters on this forum.

Cheers.

 

In any case I doubt it would counter the fact that Israel is a nation with borders, a monetary unit, tax base, government sytem and is viewed as a country by the majority of the world and has been for over fifty years.

I answered your dumb question and he was curious as to why you would ask it and why I would answer it.

 

try again : The White Lie

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1267293918


As its says : "The Israeli Interior Ministry recognizes 126 nations, but not the Israeli nation. An Israeli citizen can be registered as belonging to the Assyrian, the Tatar or the Circassian nation. But the Israeli nation? Sorry, no such thing.,,,,

,,,,

 

How cute, semantics and word play.

Anyhow, Israel is recognized as a sovereign nation by the bulk of the world and has enjoyed this status for over sixty years.

 

I suppose its slightly similar to how one of UNited Nation's founding members , the racist state of Apartheid South Africa was also " A Nation " HUH ?

 

Pretty much same as the person property of Assad - Syria or, the former property of Saddam - Iraq. They are all nations and as they have borders and people with a government and all the items necessary to be a country, they are that as well.

 

Huh ? I'm sorry , I don't see the connection. What has personal property of Assad/Saddam - got to do with "nationhood " ?

...

 

It means no matter how good, bad, vile, pristine, free, gulaged, wealthy or poor a country is they are still a nation if they are a recognized country or group of people.

 

As I've shown you - a few posts ago - there are more than one definition of a "Nation"

However , I suspect you've totally failed to understand what Uri Avnery said

I repeat :


http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/...ery/1267293918


Don't rush , take your time, read slowly , and see if there's anything Uri Avnery said
; which you do not understand


....

 

I understood it the first time and it's still like picking fly sh-t out of pepper but it's rather amusing watching you go through these mental and literary gymnastics to construct a strawman to confront the reality that Israel is a country and nation in every sense of the word.

If it had anything at all to do with your now off topic thread it might even be worth burning a few minutes off destroying this inconsequential contention but, just checked the time and I've barely got enough time to slowly walk down the street to watch paint dry.

 

et al,

I think Marlowe is referring to the 3 year old OpEd Posting called White Lie.

(COMMENT)

Marlowe is referring to the Argument that:

This is a internal game of semantics. It has no serious aspect to it, at least none that makes any difference. Of course, I don't have the insight that Uri Avnery had at the time of the article. I looked at it as a frivolous complaint to the court.

BTW: What did the court say?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Yes I read this tripe piece earlier and commented;

 

Thanks but its more complex than that.

Extract : "Israel has effectively established a de facto global Jewish nationality. Indeed, Israel makes the unique distinction between ‘Jewish nationals’ and ‘Israeli citizens’; the former consists of all persons, both within the borders of Israel and outside, who consider themselves to be Jewish, be it through familial ties, culture or conversion, and the latter who belong to the State of Israel, but who claim no Jewish linkage. This is a novel construct and is often explained by Zionists in terms similar to that of Professor Gil Troy, who posits, “The French have France, Germans have Germany, the Dutch have the Netherlands, Jews have Israel.” [6]

Troy’s assertion is misleading. Muslims residing in France are free to adopt the national French identity. However, Muslims residing in Israel cannot assume the national Jewish identity. This leads to a much more significant point, and one often overlooked in the discourse addressing Israel’s self-description as a Jewish state. The indigenous Arab population of Mandate Palestine present prior to Israel’s formation – having avoided the continuous waves of displacement since 1948 – now reside within a Jewish state as Israeli citizens. This population, numbering roughly 1.5 million individuals and representing 20% of Israel’s population, [7] is subject to a wide range of discriminatory laws and practices. To this end, the BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency & Refugee Rights has identified in excess of 20 examples of Israeli legislation and case law, which serve to entrench the rights of Jewish nationals and further this ethnic group’s advancement at the expense of non-Jews within Israel. [8]

Ultimately, the contention that what is now modern day Israel can be deemed a ‘Jewish state’ is supported by a range of evidence including the Zionist ideology underpinning its inception, its resident Jewish majority, and the de facto situation on the ground whereby the state’s legal framework affords greater protection and liberty to Jewish residents than it does to their non-Jewish counterparts. This, in conjunction with Israeli practices within the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt), constitutes the crime of apartheid and was the subject of a 2010 report by UN Special Rapporteur, Richard Falk. [9] Such damning allegations from well-respected sources serve to compromise Israel’s reputation within the international community, as well as its ability to attract foreign investment and aid. This latter point is crucial, as Israel is not economically self-sufficient [10] and is heavily reliant on foreign finance to service its disproportionately large military budget. [11]

=======
However, each of Oren’s examples is fundamentally undermined by factors arising from Israel’s status as a ‘Jewish state’.

Oren points to the Supreme Court’s 2011 conviction of former Israeli President Moshe Katsav on sex offence charges as evidence of “…the commitment to the rule of law displayed by the Jewish state.” However, such a case poses few questions relating to the Jewish nature of the state and is therefore of little value when seeking to determine the extent to which the concepts of a Jewish state and a functioning democracy are reconcilable. When a case arises whereby such questions are raised, the ruling typically favors Jewish national identity above all other factors and influences. This is best demonstrated through the Supreme Court’s upholding of the Citizenship Law in 2012, preventing Palestinians from living with their Israel-based spouses, and whereby Justice Grunis remarked that “Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide.” [15]

In addition, though suffrage is indeed open to all Israeli citizens of voting age, as is election to the Knesset, there exist a number of legislative restrictions that limit the democratic value of these provisions. For example, amendment 9 of section 7A of The Basic Law: The Knesset, 1958, prevents candidates from seeking election if they contest “…the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.”

---

Please read the whole article here :

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/02/practical-difficulties-democratic.html

by Simon Reynolds on February 14, 2013


.......