ISRAELI HISTORIAN: ISRAEL COULD FIND ITSELF FORCED TO WIPE OUT EUROPE

[1871]

Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence. (See also public reason.) Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change

Secular Tsion
Secular Tsion

say it long enough and you can make it into one word.

Might even be able to make into one concept.

[shakur420]

Dude, like I smoke a lot of weed, but you're smokin some next shit. I already read what you posted about Herzl apparently "lying". There's nothing there. You quote him talking about creating a secular Jewish state. Then, you say "what he really believed" and drop quotes about him explaining how colonization will take place. I've read that quote 100 times, I've quoted it myself. Search the forum for the word "penniless", see what's up. What the fuck does this have to do with Herzl being some sort of closet orthodox Jew with the Bible as his real motivations? Wasn't he raised as a Catholic or something? There isn't a single thing that you've dropped that shows zionism, specifically zionism in the last 100+ years has anything to do with religion. You're dropping quotes from wikipedia that blatantly state things like "nation" and "ancestry", talking about lineage and stuff. At least when they talk about the "ethnoreligious" nature of the Jewish people, they explain that it's because Judaism has traditionally been the faith of the Jewish people, not that zionism is a religious movement.

Quote:First of all, you can never prove these things. Second of all, there could be an elite consensus on the goal but there may not be elite consensus on the motive. So there could be consensus that we want to preserve the occupation, but it may be for different reasons depending on who you’re talking to. So there are some people, plainly, for whom the occupation is a religious thing. There are right-wing religious fanatics in Israel – quite a few, in fact. So there is, for some, a religious component. For some there’s plainly an economic component, to keep some of the most valuable land and to keep the water resources. For some, I’m more and more inclined to believe that it’s a kind of political thing with the Israelis where they never give in unless they’re forced to give in.
 
Let’s take the example of South Lebanon. Israel was occupying South Lebanon and there were all sorts of theories about why it wouldn’t leave. Now bear in mind that Israel stayed there for a long time, from 1978 to 2000 – that’s not a short period, we’re talking about 22 years. So why did it stay? Well, some people said, like in the West Bank, ‘they wanted the water resources’, ‘they wanted the Litani’, and so on. I think they basically wanted to stay because they were there and they didn’t want to leave until they were ready to leave. They were not going to let anybody dictate the terms of when they stay and when they leave, because they see any imposed withdrawal as a sign of weakness. So once they’re there, they’re staying there, until they’re forced to leave. I know it’s kind of a circular argument, but they see any kind of withdrawal as being weakness, and I think at this point they’re not going to leave, precisely because everybody wants them to leave. They want to show that they can resist any pressure, because if at any point they leave, it’s going to be because they were forced to, and for them that shows weakness.
http://www.zcommunications.org/god-helps...inkelstein

Quote:NF: Insofar as Zionism sought to create a Jewish state in Palestine it must be reckoned a success. Insofar as it sought to revive the Hebrew language, it must also be reckoned a success. Insofar as it sought to solve the “Jewish question,” i.e., the problem of anti-Semitism, it must be reckoned not just a failure but a catastrophe: Israel is the main cause of anti-Semitism in the world today...

...SoN: One of the most striking comparisons you make in this sense is the way Zionism reflects the anti-Semitic discourse of national ethnic uniformity as a basis for its aims. Is this part of the very core of Zionist ideology that can never be compromised, or indeed separated from Israel as a nation?

NF: In Mein Kampf, Hitler rails against the Jews and ascribes to them every imaginable vice and crime. The one exception is the Zionists, for whom Hitler shows some regard, because they agreed with him that a Jew can never be a German.
http://www.stateofnature.org/normanFinkelstein.html

Quote:CHOMSKY: This is a very complex problem. It depends on what you mean by Zionism. I was a Zionist activist in my youth. For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favor of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19970609.htm

Quote:15. You sometimes say in talks and interviews that you used to be called a 'Zionist', and now you're called an 'anti-Zionist', and that your views haven't changed. Young people working on Israel/Palestine issues today might find this confusing, since those who call themselves Zionists seem to be supporters of the most virulent Israeli government policies. Could you clarify this: What did it mean to be a 'Zionist' back then? What does it mean today?

Until December 1942, the Zionist movement had no formal commitment to a Jewish state. Until the state was established in May 1948, opposition to a Jewish state was within the Zionist movement. Later, the concept "Zionism" was very narrowly restricted for propaganda reasons. By the 1970s, when Israel chose expansion and dependence on the US over security and integration into the region, the concept "Zionism" was narrowed to refer, in effect, to support for the policies of the government of Israel. Thus when the distinguished Israeli Labor Party statesman Abba Eban said that the task of dialogue with the gentile world is to show that "anti-Zionists" are either anti-Semites or neurotic self-hating Jews (his examples were I.F. Stone and me), he was restricting "Zionism" to support for the state of Israel and excluding any such criticism as logically impossible. The concept "anti-Zionism" then becomes analogous to the disgraceful concept "anti-Americanism," drawn from the lexicon of totalitarianism and based on strictly totalitarian principles. By now the term has been so debased by propaganda that it is better abandoned, in my opinion.
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040330.htm

Quote:Yesterday I said that Noam Chomsky is a left Zionist. I asked Norman Finkelstein about his friend. "The accurate term is a CULTURAL Zionist, meaning he (like his father) was (and remains) committed to the revival of Hebrew culture in Palestine.  Politically, before 1974 he supported a version of binationalism but after 1974 believed it was not politically feasible anymore and supported the international consensus for a 2-state settlement, although fully aware of its limitations."

Robert Barsky's superb bio of Chomsky fills the picture in somewhat. Barsky says that as a young man Chomsky was associated with Avukah and Hashomer Hatzair, leftwing Zionist movements that promoted Jewish emigration to Israel because of their concerns with anti-Semitism in the west. But Chomsky did not believe in a Jewish state. "The creation of such a state would necessitate carving up the territory and marginalizing, on the basis of religion, a significant portion of its poor and oppressed population, rather than uniting them on the basis of socialist principles," Barsky writes. By the 1970s, Chomsky endorsed "a gradual move towards binationalism."
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/chomsky-and-zionism.html

Quote:CHOMSKY: I was connected to a considerable part of the Zionist movement which was opposed to a Jewish state. It’s not too well known, but until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state. And even that was in the middle of World War II. It was a decision made in the Hotel Biltmore in New York, where there was the first official call for a Jewish state. Before that in the whole Zionist movement, establishing a Jewish state was maybe implicit or in people’s minds or something, but it wasn’t an official call.

The group that I was interested in was bi-nationalist. And that was not so small. A substantial part of the Kibbutz movement, for example, Hashomer Hatzair, was at least officially anti-state, calling for bi-nationalism. And the groups I was connected with were hoping for a socialist Palestine based on Arab-Jewish, working-class cooperation in a bi-national community: no state, no Jewish state, just Palestine.

There were significant figures involved in that. Actually one of them in Philadelphia was Zellig Harris, the guy I ended up studying with at the University of Pennsylvania. He was one of the leaders of a group called Avukah. By the time I got there it had disbanded but through the 1930s and early 1940s it was quite an important organization of left-wing, Zionist, anti-state, young Jews. Plenty of people went through that—a lot of people who are pretty well-known now—from all over the place. It was not an insignificant part of the young, left Jewish community in the United States, and happened to be partially in Philadelphia.

I can remember when the UN partition resolution was announced in 1947. It was almost like mourning in these circles because we didn’t want a Jewish state.

The Anglo-American Commission claimed that about 25% of the Jewish population in Palestine was opposed to a state. There was kind of a different mentality at the time. To talk about socialism wasn’t considered a joke at that time. It was a real meaningful, live phenomenon. And a large part of the Yishuv—the Jewish community in Palestine—was, in fact, a co-operative community with collectives, co-operative industry, commerce, lots of socialist institutions. They were also racist Jews. But there was also a lot of opposition to that, too in our groups. We thought they should be Arab-Jewish.
http://www.newvoices.org/opinion?id=0136

Quote:A minority, who believed that greater assimilation would not alter the hostility of non-Jews, adopted Zionism. According to this view, the Jew would remain an outsider in European society regardless of the liberalism of the age because Jews lacked a state of their own. Jewish statelessness, then, was the root cause of anti-Semitism. The Zionists sought to solve the Jewish problem by creating a Jewish entity outside Europe but modeled after the European nation-state. After more then half a century of emancipation, West European Jewry had become distanced from both the ritual and culture of traditional Judaism. Thus, Zionism in its West European Jewish context envisioned a purely political solution to the Jewish problem: a state of Jews rather than a Jewish state...

...A smaller but growing number of Jews were attracted to the ancient but newly formulated notion of reconstituting a Jewish nation-state in Palestine. Zionism as it evolved in Eastern Europe, unlike Zionism in the West, dealt not only with the plight of Jews but with the crisis of Judaism. Thus, despite its secularism, East European Zionism remained attached to the Jewish biblical home in Palestine. It also was imbued with the radical socialist fervor challenging the tsarist regime.

Zionism's reformulation of traditional Judaism was deeply resented by Orthodox Jews, especially the Hasidim. Most East European Jews rejected the notion of a return to the promised land before the appearance of the messiah. They viewed Zionism as a secular European creation that aspired to change the focus of Judaism from devotion to Jewish law and religious ritual to the establishment of a Jewish nation-state.
http://countrystudies.us/israel/7.htm

Quote:Until the 1880s, the Zionist movement consisted of a handful of fanatical religious sects. Jews who were enjoying the fruits of emancipation felt no need for religious utopias. For example, in 1862, Moses Hess, a Marxist-turned-Zionist wrote a book called Rome and Jerusalem. It’s now considered a Zionist classic, but at the time of its publication, most Jews, if they heard about Hess at all dismissed him as a crank. In its first year the book it sold only 160 copies and the publisher had to ask Hess to buy back the remaining copies!6

The revival of anti-Semitism was epitomized by the Dreyfus Affair, in which the French government framed and convicted a Jewish army officer for treason. The 1894 trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus launched an international movement against anti-Semitism. But for an Austrian journalist named Theodor Herzl, who covered the trial in France, the Dreyfus Affair meant that no matter how assimilated Jews were in society, they would never be safe until they had a state of their own. In 1896, Herzl published The State of the Jews, the manifesto for a new political Zionist movement...

Herzl’s "political Zionism" was secular and pragmatic. He argued that the Jewish state could only be built under the patronage of one of the imperialist powers. Because the Jews would inevitably be a minority wherever they settled, and since they would incur the hostility of whatever indigenous population they were colonizing, they could not succeed without the big guns of a big imperialist power backing them up. In fact, Palestine was only one of several territories Herzl considered for colonization. Argentina, Uganda, Cyprus, and even a couple of states in the Midwest of the United States were discussed as possible locations for the Jewish state. But the religious faction in the Zionist movement fought hard for Palestine and Herzl, never one to miss the power of a symbol, agreed that the ancient Jewish "homeland" would give the movement more emotional power...

...If one of the defining features of Zionism was its identification with imperial power, aother was the way Herzl and founders of the movement viewed the very Jews they claimed to represent. The writings of Herzl and his colleague, Max Nordau, are littered with descriptions of European Jews as parasites, social diseases, germs, aliens. They were frustrated and bewildered that most Jews wanted to assimilate and live in their countries of birth. To these men who worshipped power and privilege, the desperate poverty of the Jews of Eastern Europe was a sign of weakness in the Jewish character...

...Nordau’s repulsive views flowed quite logically from Zionism’s basic assumptions about Jews. Zionists accepted the 19th century view that anti-Semitism–in fact all racial difference–was a permanent feature of human nature. For this reason it was pointless to struggle against it. The solution for Jews was to form a state and convince the European world that Jews belonged to the class of the "superior" colonizers, not to that of the colonized. It was a very short jump from this belief to concluding that Jews themselves were the cause of anti-Semitism. Herzl accepted the idea that Jews were an economic burden on society, that their very presence provoked violence from the rest of society...

...To the leaders of the Jewish Agency, the rise of fascism had a definite upside. Menahem Ussishkin told a Zionist Executive meeting, "There is something positive in their tragedy and that is that Hitler oppressed them as a race and not as a religion. Had he done the latter, half the Jews in Germany would simply have converted to Christianity."...
http://www.isreview.org/issues/24/hidden_history.shtml

Then, of course, there's your favorite source. lol, I mean seriously man, come on.

Quote:Religious Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות דתית, Tziyonut Datit, or דתי לאומי, Dati Leumi) is an ideology that combines Zionism and Jewish religious faith. Religious Zionists are observant Jews who support Zionist efforts to build a Jewish state in the Land of Israel.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionism

Quote:The vision of IDC was born out of the spirit of resolve exemplified in the zealousness of Israel’s pioneers, whose drive and dedication transformed the once arid and desolate wasteland into a blooming, thriving state. Zionism, the ideology that propelled these pioneers to undertake such an arduous task, is the cornerstone of IDC Herzliya.

One of the main goals of the school and particularly the RRIS, aside from giving students a quality education, is to enable young Zionists from all around the world to realize their passion for Israel. But do Zionism and Judaism always go hand-in-hand, and more importantly, should they be bound together as one? After all, the roots of the Zionist movement were largely secular, which is one of the main criticisms made by religious Jews of the State of Israel today; thus, it is important to point out that one must not be Jewish to be a Zionist, and vice versa.

http://portal.idc.ac.il/He/Main/about_id...Hillel.pdf

Yes, there's some people who consider the roots of zionism to be religious in nature, regardless of it's modern secular character, say from the last 100, 150 years or so.  They think maybe that even though these Athiest, or secular, Jews reject the Bible as the motivation for a return to the homeland (zionists see creating an ethnically Jewish sate/nation as a solution to antisemitism and the vulnerability of Jewish people in general), that they are still "spiritually bonded" or some shit to the biblical motivation.  At the same time, lol, they still admit that the zionism we're talking about (modern day Israel) was and is secular in nature. They just try and connect these people with some spiritual motive, deep in their genes or whatever.  You could pretend that zionists in the past, before the late 1800s, the religious ones, represented the movement but remember that Orthodox Jews are not down with the idea of creating Israel.  Many had to be persuaded that it was a physical means to a spiritual end, so to say.  They believe God, or the Messiah rather, is supposed to deliver them to Israel, it's literally sacrilegious to take the land back yourself.  Not to mention the obvious contradictions between being a peaceful community and colonizing populated land.  It's just not something they're supposed to do.  Zionism is strictly about colonizing to solve the "Jewish question" or however the fuck Herzl framed it.  A proposed solution so that Jewish people can ensure their safety and prosperity.

Quote:For an Orthodox rabbi to support a secular movement that publicly proclaimed that it 'has nothing to do with theology' was close to heresy. Why should a religious scholar with a deep love for all peoples be supportive of a secular nationalist movement? Indeed, Rav Kook's outlook on Zionism is a complex topic, the subject of numerous books and academic articles, and certainly beyond the scope of a brief essay. Nonetheless, the following excerpts from his writings and letters shed light on his views on this nonreligious (and sometimes anti-religious) movement...

...For Rav Kook, the fall of Zionism into the hands of the secularists was a form of shevirat keilim, reminiscent of the Kabbalistic 'breaking of vessels' that occurred when the universe was created. The original light and holiness was simply too great to be contained within the limitations of the physical vessels; and it is our task to return these fallen sparks to their elevated source.

But why did the return to the land of Israel need to be appropriated by a secular nationalist movement? Rav Kook attempted to solve this riddle by noting certain qualities lacking in religious circles...

...The original roots of Zionism are holy, going back to the disciples of the Gaon of Vilna and the Baal Shem Tov. Zionism must be returned to these authentic holy roots.

The success of secular Zionism is due to its non-sectarian concern for the entire Jewish people, and it serves as a necessary correction for the imbalances caused by centuries of statelessness.
http://ravkooktorah.org/YOM_ATZMAUT_68.htm

[Rick Ross 187]

I think the non-evangelical nature of Judaism makes it unclear. As its pretty hard to become Jewish without being born into it, it is not clear where being Jewish is a religious thing or ethnic. Those who saw Jews are being a ethnic-national group, and therefore argued for a nation-state for the Jewish people were not outright influenced by religion, but as with all national movements, legitimisation for a nation state goes back to ancient history (e.g. Albanians think of themselves as Illyrian descendants). The history within the religious texts of Judaism offered this. Is it secular or non-secular for people who view themselves as simply culturally Jewish (but embraced the ideas of Marxism and other popular secular views of the times as many Jews did in Europe) to base the claim for their nation upon history within religious texts?

I guess the movement for a Jewish state in the lower Levant was for many based on the idea of cultural and ethnic nationhood (and therefore largely secular), but its hard to argue it was devoid of any influence from the religious texts of Judaism, whether or not many believed in the god in the Torah. I been reading Amos Oz's Tale of Love and Darkness, and most of the characters IIRC seemed mostly divorced from religion, but its not simply coincidence that the lands claimed for the state of Israel just happen to coincide with the land that the Torah speaks of Jews inhabiting etc

I dno

[1871]

Quote:There isn't a single thing that you've dropped that shows zionism, specifically zionism in the last 100+ years has anything to do with religion.

re-read the posts. You obviously didnt read the posts I made since I showed specifically this very thing which you claim I didnt show ! lol. Its there - anyone can see it. You choose not to.
Read them again and you'll even read their influence on Herzl. Infact I showed and pasted in examples of the influence the Rabbis had on Herzles thinking (not enough unfortunately).

To clarify your question - you referred to the idea of Herzl being a closet orthodox Jew - lol - not me. I said he lied - and there are many examples of Herzl lying and his outright contradictions;

Quote: Herzl also envisioned the future Jewish state to be a "third way" between capitalism and socialism, with a developed welfare program and public ownership of the main natural resources and industry, agriculture and even trade organized on a cooperative basis. He called this mixed economic model "Mutualism", a term derived from French utopian socialist thinking. Women would have equal voting rights—as they did have in the Zionist movement from the Second Zionist Congress onwards.

Socialist ideas Herzl expressed publicly which were completely contracted by his private writings (refer back to my post referencing his private diary). I think there were historical and social reasons why they felt the need to give a secular spin on what was a religiously created Zionism ie; why they thought they needed to promote it as 'secular' even though it was religious.

You are even confusing the idea that there is even a consensus among Jewish religious opinion - infact there were religious Jews who agreed with the creation of the State of Israel and those who didnt. The highest principles of Judaism have led Rabbis to opposing human rights violations on Palestinians. From your own reference;

Quote:For an Orthodox rabbi to support a secular movement that publicly proclaimed that it 'has nothing to do with theology' was close to heresy.

^
Exactly.

Quote:In 1862, German Orthodox Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer published his tractate Derishat Zion, positing that the salvation of the Jews, promised by the Prophets, can come about only by self-help. The main ideologue of modern religious Zionism was Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who justified Zionism according to Jewish law and urged young religious Jews to support efforts to settle the land, and the secular Labour Zionists to give more consideration to Judaism. Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner was another prominent rabbi who supported Zionism. Kook saw Zionism as a part of a divine scheme which would result in the resettlement of the Jewish people in its homeland. This would bring salvation ("Geula") to Jews, and then to the entire world. After world harmony is achieved by the refoundation of the Jewish homeland, the Messiah will come. Although this has not yet happened, Kook emphasized that it would take time, and that the ultimate redemption happens in stages, often not apparent while happening. In 1924, when Kook became the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, he tried to reconcile Zionism with Orthodox Judaism.

Obviously;

Quote:Kook saw Zionism as a part of a divine scheme

Because it was first written of in the Holy Bible. Where do you think this idea comes from?


[size=xlarge]

Quote:Religious Jews believe that Eretz Yisrael was promised to the ancient Israelites by God and the right of the Jews to the land is permanent and inalienable. To generations of diaspora Jews, Jerusalem has been a symbol of the Holy Land and of their return to it, as promised by God in numerous Biblical prophecies. Despite this, some Jews did not embrace Zionism before the 1930s and certain religious groups opposed it on the grounds that an attempt to re-establish Jewish rule in Israel by human agency was blasphemous. Hastening salvation and the coming of the Messiah was considered religiously forbidden, and Zionism was seen as a sign of disbelief in God's power and therefore a rebellion against God. Rabbi Kook developed a theological answer to that claim, which gave Zionism a religious legitimation: "Zionism was not merely a political movement by secular Jews. It was actually a tool of God to promote His divine scheme and to initiate the return of the Jews to their homeland - the land He promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God wants the children of Israel to return to their home in order to establish a Jewish sovereign state in which Jews could live according to the laws of Torah and Halakha and commit the Mitzvot of Eretz Israel (these are religious commandments which can be performed only in the land of Israel). Moreover, to cultivate the land of Israel was a Mitzvah by itself and it should be carried out. Therefore, settling Israel is an obligation of the religious Jews and helping Zionism is actually following God's will."

Religious Jews also disapproved of the Zionists because many were secular Jews or atheists, taking their cue from Marxism. Socialist Zionism envisaged the movement as a tool for building an advanced socialist society in the land of Israel, while solving the problem of antisemitism. The early kibbutz was a communal settlement that focused on national goals unencumbered by religion and precepts of Jewish law such as kashrut. Rabbi Kook's answer was as follows:
Secular Zionists may think they do it for political, national or socialist reasons, but in fact - the actual reason for them coming to resettle in Israel is a religious Jewish spark ("Nitzotz") in their soul, planted by God. Without their knowledge, they are contributing to the divine scheme and actually committing a great Mitzvah. The role of religious Zionists is to help them to establish a Jewish state and turn the religious spark in them into a great light. [color=#1E90FF]

[b]They should show them that the real source of Zionism and the longed-for Zion is Judaism and teach them Torah with love and kindness. In the end, they will understand that the laws of Torah are the key to true harmony and a socialist state (not in the Marxist meaning) that will be a light for the nations and bring salvation to the world.

Shlomo Avineri explained the last part of Kook's answer: "... and the end of those pioneers, who scout into the blindness of secularism and atheism, but the treasured light inside them leads them into the path of salvation - their end is that from doing Mitzva without purpose, they will do Mitzva with a purpose." (page 222, 1)

^
So, Ive now shown you this. I showed you it in the Bible - the Old Testament - re-read it- learn your Judaism lol - and still you attempt to say that it is not there, that this was not the blueprint. Right, ok. lol btw- re wikipedia - if theres anything I post where links are not indexed let me know. as for Annie Zirins anti-semitic ranting in the Socialist review - come on yerself.

[shakur420]

So all the people who claim a Jewish ethinicity, and no connection to religion for their zionist aspirations - a state in Palestine - are just lying? It's the 10% of Israel's population that believes in a Biblical claim to the land who represent zionism, not Herzl, the zionist congress or the secular Jews who filled the movement (and were opposed by the religious Jews) that make up the large majority of the zionist movement in the last 100+ years. Their zionism doesn't really exist. Because maybe you can show that Herzl lies about other things, even though you can't show he lied about that, he clearly did. Very informative. Could you at least address the wiki quote I dropped? You know, the one that defines "religious zionism" as a combination of "zionism" and "religion", I mean, if zionism is already a religious movement, then how does this make any sense? Try giving me secular sources that say their zionism, or the large majority of the zionist movement rather, is actually influenced by religion.

[1871]

Quote:So all the people who claim a Jewish ethinicity, and no connection to religion for their zionist aspirations - a state in Palestine - are just lying?

Not from their perspective. Thats what they believe.They just choose to ignore their religious heritage. Shame. It is convenient for them. They use psychological aspects of it ie; the idea of a 'chosen people' being equivalent to a 'master race'. Ironic I know.

Quote:It's the 10% of Israel's population that believes in a Biblical claim to the land

Only 10% - ???!!! I am not sure many Israelis would agree with that ! In fact the reason why there is such strong support and close connections with America and the UK isd that shared Judeo Christian belief. This is a big reason why the US is dragging its heels on proper condemnation regarding Israels unacceptable human rights abuses.

Quote:....the secular Jews who filled the movement (and were opposed by the religious Jews) that make up the large majority of the zionist movement in the last 100+ years. Their zionism doesn't really exist

they were opposed by some religious Jews and supported by others. Their 'zion- ism' exists. Dont know why they called it 'Zion' ism though - they just wanted to create a broadbased movement - safety in numbers and ethnicity -but obviously they didnt go to Argentina - that, probably even then, was a red herring.They took a religious idea and said it wasnt religious - but the original sources for the idea are there in religious texts - and it could not have come to fruition without significant help from Christian supporters of Zionism. I think it also accounts for a good deal of the disgusting arrogance of many Israelis - which shame other sane Israelis who do not agree with their governments policies http://www.israelisforpalestine.org/

Quote:The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses

- Israeli Declaration of Independence

I dont need to give you secular sources. They are irrelevant. The Biblical/Torah sources state, as does the Qu'ran. Israel is ruled by evil people and a population who ,like you say, attempt to own and colonise the land unjustly contrary to;

Quote: In the Talmud and Midrash, there are approximately 200 teachings concerning derech eretz as decent, polite, respectful, thoughtful, and civilized behavior. One representative teaching is that "Derech eretz comes before Torah" (Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 9:3) – one cannot personify Torah until he demonstrates derech eretz in everything that he does. There are many more such teachings in the rishonim and acharonim (post-Talmudic authorities). The mussar literature, in fact, presents an entire body of thought devoted to the subject of middot (character traits) and "behaving like a mentsh" (refined human being). Here, the way that one behaves is regarded as an external manifestation of one's middot.

of the same;

Quote:The movement is somewhat distant from Modern Orthodoxy. Rabbi Schwab regards Modern Orthodoxy as having misinterpreted Hirsch's ideas: regarding standards of halakha as well as the relative emphasis of Torah versus secular; see discussion under Torah Umadda. Further, Breuer, influenced by Hirsch's philosophy on Austritt (secession), "could not countenance recognition of a non-believing body as a legitimate representative of the Jewish people". For this reason, he was "unalterably opposed to the Mizrachi movement, which remained affiliated with the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_im_Derech_Eretz

The secular Zionists of Herzl would never have succeeded without the intervention of Christian Zionists in helping their cause.



http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html

[shakur420]

(01-11-2012 01:35 AM)1871 Wrote:  They just choose to ignore their religious heritage.

So what, you're like one of those crazy guys I referenced earlier that believes even non-religious people have religious motives, somewhere, deep inside, hidden? But they'll come around soon? Ok.

(01-11-2012 01:35 AM)1871 Wrote:  Only 10% - ???!!! I am not sure many Israelis would agree with that ! In fact the reason why there is such strong support and close connections with America and the UK isd that shared Judeo Christian belief. This is a big reason why the US is dragging its heels on proper condemnation regarding Israels unacceptable human rights abuses.

Yeah, I don't think it's that big of a reason. I'm sure that's part of it, makes sense, the "Christian right", as some people call, or evangelicals, they do get pandered to because of votes and funding, but profit is usually the overriding concern. The same argument falls apart with "the lobby", as soon as "the lobby's" interests conflict with the economic interests of those who really run the U.S. - the ultra rich, corporations, etc. - it becomes powerless and holds no weight, I mean, "the lobby" didn't have push that hard, that long for the war in Iraq now did it? Why has it taken so long with Iran? I mean, they were going hard for a few years there, about 3-4 years after they invaded Iraq, there's mad rhetoric about "evil Iran" and "next holocaust" and shit. And then it disappeared for a few years. Came back the last year or so, what's up with that? Where wass the all-encompassing power of the lobby then? The energy resources there in the region, control of them, has been a major, if not the only overriding factor in foreign policy for the U.S. since like WWI. I'm sure it doesn't hurt the cause, these Christians talking about the "promise land", AIPAC and co. helping to demonize official enemies, funnel campaign funding to the right places and shit, but I'd like to see one example of U.S. economic interests being overridden to satisfy one of these groups.

lol, as far as the 10%, I'm telling you that I'm not talking outta my ass here. These "ultra-Orthodox" guys, as people call them, are the ones you want me to believe have represented the dominant strain of zionism for the last century. They're the ones you see running around with machine guns and shit, the militarized settlement population, the ones who squat in Palestinian houses, shit like that, the ones that claim religious entitlement. Most everyone else talks about ancestral lineage, you know, the "homeland" shit, rather than the "promised land". Whether the 10% is exactly accurate or not, it's a good indicator that I can call this view a minority view. Especially when you combine it with the ethnic references you hear all the time, talking about entitlement to the "homeland".
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talk...22518.html
http://observers.france24.com/content/20...treet-sign
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/worl...14633.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/2...6C20111227
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16342327

(01-11-2012 01:35 AM)1871 Wrote:  They took a religious idea and said it wasnt religious - but the original sources for the idea are there in religious texts...

Got it. So, anyone who believes in being a good person, amicable to others because phrases like "do unto thy neighbor..." make sense to them, have religious motives for their kindness, even if they're say, Atheist or something. Makes perfect sense, cause hey, the roots of that phrase come from religious texts. Same goes for the persecution of gay people, that can be found in religious text apparently, so I guess the evolution of Cuba's revolution is based on religious motives and roots. Same goes for stalin, I guess his mass slaughter comes from religious roots cause you can find this stuff in religious texts apparently - slaughtering people for dissent and defiance (don't ask me, ask our resident neocon/militant Atheist/looney bin, he'll tell you all about the religious roots of stalin's exterminations). Now I understand.

A couple of the names you dropped earlier. It's interesting, I don't see how they show anything except that for at least the last 110 years or so, the zionist movement has been dominated by secular motives, not biblical ones.

Quote:The focuses of the practical friction between the two camps can be classified according to two main issues: first, the dissemination of the Zionist idea among the Jewish masses, either through direct propaganda or through the channel of education; and second, the way of life of the colonists in Palestine and nature of the new Jewish publicity created there...

...At the beginning of the period, there was a tacit agreement between the observant and the nonobservant that settlement in the Land of Israel bound the settlers to observe the commandments and to maintain a Jewish public life. The observant leaders demanded control over the way of life in the new colonies. The nonobservant accepted this demand for tactical reasons, probably believing that time would inevitable make the observant position more flexible. But the character of the settlers in the Land of Israel depended on more than the goddwill of Hibbat Zion. Many who went to Palestine, especially during the 1890s, though influenced by the national idea, were not a part of Hibbat Zion, and they were not ready to accept control of the observant. Thus the New Yishuv had evolved to be much more secular in appearance than the observant leaders had expected...

...for most of the period, the actual leadership of the movement was in the hands of the nonobservant. Yet although the Zionist movement was not based on democratic principles at this time, the observant demanded spiritual hegemony, claiming that they represented the majority of the Jewish masses...

...Eretz Israel was the Holy Land, and the rise of a secular settlement there implied a shattering and denial of a dream fostered by religious Jews for many generations. Could the Orthodox agree to such a move and yet remain innocent?...

...This theology was founded on two main assumptions. First, the deviation of the nonobservant from the Torah was a temporary phase only ("a transient malady" according to Rabbi Isaac Jacob Reines) in the process of redemption. This assumption derived from the belief in the mystical power of the people of Israel, which can never be totally defiled, and in the therapeutic power of the Holy Land. Accordingly, unbelief can never strike roots in the people of Israel. Its only source is external - the exile with its negative effects. Thus a return to the homeland should redeem the sinners. The Zionist project is the channel through which they would finally make repentance. On the basis of this belief, there is room for halakhic flexibility, which permits cooperation with sinners in building the land. This position also opens the way for fostering common concerns without recognition of the Jewish legitimacy of the nonobservant...

...Among the nonobservant we may note a process of radicalization. As long as they had a feeling of dependence on the Orthodox leadership, they were ready to make long-range concessions to the observant in order to attract Orthodox Jews to the movement. Leaders such as Leon Pinsker and Moshe Leib Lilienblum, and later Theodor Herzl, believed that the great reserves of the Zionist movement were among Orthodox Jews, and consequently they preferred to postpone every ideological division to the unseen future, assuming that political reality itself would force the observant to adapt themselves to modernization. But gradually it became obvious that modernization was the precondition for the Zionist fulfillment rather than its outcome. That was the argument of Ahad Haam and his followers: without educational work, there was no chance for Zionism. The revolutionary spirit of that age and the struggle of Zionism with other modern movements for the hearts of Jewish youth and the intelligentsia led the Zionist intelligentsia to be less tolerant toward the observant and more radical in their demands. It is no wonder that their educational and cultural activity among the Jewish masses appeared to be the main reason for the secession of the major part of the observant, who in 1900-1901 became bitter opponents of Zionism...

...On the one hand, Ahad Haam was a man of integrity. In contrast to many other Zionists, he never tried to hide or to obliterate the conflict of opinions since he believed that a genuine partnership could not be built on a lack of honesty. He sharply criticized the rabbis who had tried to enforce their authority on the nonobservant in matters of both opinion and behavior. He considered freedom of expression as the sine qua non for cooperation. Being an agnostic freethinker, he became the first Zionist thinker who outspokenly declared that it was possible to be an authentic Jew out of secular motives...

...when Ahad Haam came to define the ideological basis for the partnership, he used the term "national spirit." This was a historicist concept that could be interpreted in different ways, and Ahad Haam believed that its very vagueness would open the way for cooperation. For Ahad Haam himself, the concept meant most of all the feeling of historical continuity built on historical knowledge and the crucial importance of certain antional symbols common to all Jews, even though for different reasons...

...Pines was the first who called for a separate religious Zionist organization to struggle against secular Zionism. But Pines was well acquainted with observant indolence, namely its passiveness and its lack of initiative, which would leave the nonobservant to conquer the entire field of Zionism...

...once the nonobservant disclosed publicly their ideological position and acted accordingly, the rift with Orthodoxy became inevitable and only a small minority of observant remained ready to continue cooperation. In this sense, nothing changed in Herzl's time (1897-1904). In contrast to the majority of observant who condemned Zionism as a secular, heretical movement, this minority persisted in its belief that Zionism would serve as a forerunner of the return to tradition and eventually as a preparation for the redemption. Therefore they participated in all the activities of the Zionist organization and supported the building of the Land of Israel and the creating there of an independent Jewish polity.

pg 47-52
http://books.google.ca/books?id=mS6oW4TT...sm&f=false

Quote:...the majority of Zionists throughout the history of the movement have been not religious, but secular in orientation. The same can be said about Jewish citizens of the state of Israel today: about 75 percent of this population is secular, and staunchly so. It is therefore important that we also take a careful look at this form of Zionism. Prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, it was in fact Zionism in its secular form that produced the movement's most violent adherents. The forefather of militaristic secular Zionism was Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940), who headed the Revisionist party in the early Zionist congresses. Jabotinsky was not really an ultranationalist. He had too much admiration for the British and too much regard for democracy and liberalism to be classified under that rubric. He was also a realist who understood that the Jewish community in Palestine was too weak to win a military struggle against the British. Nonetheless, Jabotinsky was a nationalist who believed in militarism as the means of forwarding the aims of Zionism and that a Jewish state should be established on both sides of the Jordan River. He also believed that a confrontation with the Palestinians was inevitable and that the question of who would rule Palestine would have to be settled by armed confrontation. Moreover, Jabotinsky's political actions did not usually convey his liberal side, and therefore his right-wing side was most influential. He created the Beitar youth movement, which fostered military values and glorified Israel's military past, as exemplified by Bar Kokhba and Masada.

Jabotinsky's thinking and the Revisionist party he created also gave rise to an ultranationalist faction within the party that was often more extreme than he was. This group included such figures as Uri Tsevi Greenberg, Abba Ahimeir, and Yehoshua Heshel Yevin, who banded together in 1931 to establish an organization known as the Berit ha-Biryonim (Covenant of the Ruffians). The group adopted the political thinking of the extreme right in europe, which was on the rise in the interwar period. They were hostile to democracy and socialism, and they believed that Zionism should model itself on the biblical past, when the Israelites conquered their enemies and expanded their kingdom through military force. Eventually, revisionism produced ultranationalist groups that were focused on implementing this ideology in the realm of action...

...Socialist Labor Zionism, which was the most popular form of Zionism before the establishment of the state and remained so for three decades afterward, had its own violent tendencies, albeit more subtle in form than those found among the Revisionists. Anita Shapira has written a seminal study detailing and analyzing the views of mainstream Labor Zionism on the issue of power in the pre-state years, and she shows how they gradually evolved into an agressive ideology. Initially, in the 1920s and 1930s Labor Zionism formulated a political ideology that she terms "the defensive ethos" to deal with the moral question of settling Palestine and dispossessing the Arabs of their land. According to this ethos, the Labor Zionists desired peace with the Palestinians but believed that the Palestinian leadership had incited hostility to Zionism among Palestinian peasants. The Labor Zionists theorized that the Palestinian leadership wanted to maintain its position of privilege vis-a-vis the peasants and feared that the Zionists would help the peasants achieve prosperity, thereby inspiring the peasants to rebel against their Palestinian leaders. The Palestinian leadership therefore convinced the peasants that the Zionists were their enemies. This understanding of the conflict was based on a classic socialist viewpoint, which understood all societal conflict as resulting from class interests. The Labor Zionists felt that eventually the Palestinian peasants would recognize the advantage of living with the Zionists and throw off the yoke of their overlords.

Yet, Shapira also shows that the early views of the Labor Zionists were often inconsistent regarding the Palestinians and that their words and actions often betrayed a hostile attitude toward them. The Labor Zionists steadfastly refused to recognize Palestinian nationalism. Thus, in effect, they granted everything to the Palestinians as human beings but nothing to them as a nation. Furthermore, the Labor Zionists stated quite openly that they wanted to avoid any formal political arrangement with the Palestinians until Jewish immigration ensured a Jewish majority, so that Jews would hold the balance of power. The main question that all this raises is whether the Labor Zionists were sincere when expressing their desire for peace with the Palestinians or this was just a strategy to convince others, and perhaps even themselves, that their intentions were good. Shapira claims that there is no easy answer to this question.

However, according to Shapira's analysis, there is no doubt that the defensive ethos of Labor Zionism gradually gave way to an offensive ethos that was unequivocal in its hostility to the Palestinians in the decade before the 1948 war. From 1936 to 1939, Palestinians, frustrated by the growth of the Jewish community and fearful that it would become dominant, engaged in a violent rebellion that targeted Jews. Labor Zionists could no longer pretend that Palestinian nationalism did not exist, and many of them reacted by expressing violent attitudes towards the Palestinians. Moreover, by the 1940s a new generation of Jews had come of age in Palestine that had been reared there and viewed the land as their own. This generation was less romantic than its socialist forebears, more honest and open about human relations, and more direct and rude in expressing its opinions. Most important, it openly embraced militarism and nativism, characteristics that would prepare it to emerge victorious in 1948. Much research has also been done demonstrating that in the pre-state years, many Zionists supported the notion of "transfer, " the idea that the conflict between Jews and Palestinians could be solved by resettling the Palestinian population in Arab countries and giving the Jews sovereignty over the entirety of Palestine. Jewish opinions varied as to whether this scheme could be accomplished peacefully or would require the use of force. While it comes as no surprise that many Revisionists supported this plan, scholarly research has revealed that it also received endorsement by many in the Labor camp, though it was spoken about in these circles in more hushed terms than was the case with the Revisionists. As for the 1948 war itself, the groundbreaking work of Benny Morris has shown that the Labor leadership, which guided the war effort, ordered Jewish soldiers to expel many Palestinians from their homes and villages, applauded when other Palestinians left of their own accord, and did not allow most of them to return after the war was over.

After the establishment of the state of Israel, many secular Zionists continued to support territorial maximalism. Greatly energized by Israel's victory in the 1967 war, they formed a movement called Ha-Tnu'ah le-Ma'an Erets Yisra'el ha-Shleimah (the Land of Israel Movement), which was devoted to ensuring that Israel did not relinquish the territories that had been captured. Predictably, the movement drew support from old Revisionists, who had always believed that the entirety of the land of Israel belonged to the Jews, but was remarkable was that many of its members came from the Labor party, including distinguished politicians, generals, intellectuals, and artists.

pg 160-163
http://books.google.ca/books?id=zhpNQWj4...sm&f=false

I also left a bit more in there cause it speaks on the open intentions of the zionists, as well as some of the facts from that period. Mainly directed at those who try to claim that "Palestine never existed", that it's Ok for Israel to bomb Palestinian neighborhoods with it's "precision" weapons because the "terrorists hide" in UN compounds, and people who wanna pretend that there's some kind of equal footing here, that the Palestinians are the ones who should be showing "restraint" or some shit. lol, they're fighting, and have been fighting, colonizers for fuck's sake.

[1871]

Quote:shakur

So what, you're like one of those crazy guys I referenced earlier that believes even non-religious people have religious motives, somewhere, deep inside, hidden? But they'll come around soon? Ok.

You mean those 'crazy' guys you referenced earlier who can all be characterised as being religious extremists? lol. So much for the secular notion of neutrality in matters of belief (given that all religious people are right wing fanatics?) Never mind that within Judaism and orthodox Judaism represents a diversity of approaches;

Quote:Diversity within Orthodox Judaism

Orthodox Judaism's central belief is that Torah, including the Oral Law, was given directly from God to Moses and applies in all times and places. Haredi Judaism asserts that it may no longer be changed in any fashion. As a result, all Jews are required to live in accordance with the Commandments and Jewish law.

Since there is no one Orthodox body, there is no one canonical statement of principles of faith. Rather, each Orthodox group claims to be a non-exclusive heir to the received tradition of Jewish theology, while still affirming a literal acceptance of Maimonides' thirteen principles.

Given this (relative) philosophic flexibility, variant viewpoints are possible, particularly in areas not explicitly demarcated by the Halakha. The result is a relatively broad range of hashqafoth (Sing. hashkafa Hebrew: השקפה‎ – world view, Weltanschauung) within Orthodoxy. The greatest differences within strains of Orthodoxy are over:
the degree to which an Orthodox Jew should integrate and/or disengage from secular society
based on varying interpretations of the Three Oaths, whether Zionism is part of Judaism or opposed to it, and defining the role of the modern State of Israel in Judaism
their spiritual approach to Torah such as the relative roles of mainstream Talmudic study and mysticism or ethics
the validity of secular knowledge including critical Jewish scholarship of Rabbinic literature and modern philosophical ideas
whether the Talmudic obligation to learn and practice a trade/profession applies in our times
the centrality of yeshivas as the place for personal Torah study
the validity of authoritative spiritual guidance in areas outside of Halakhic decision (Da'as Torah)
the importance of maintaining non-Halakhic customs, such as dress, language and music
the role of women in (religious) society
the nature of the relationship with non-Jews

^And that doesnt even cover the ideological spectrum of modern orthodoxy. But the view expressed by those Rabbis with their belief that people would find a spiritual core referring back to the Torah and Judaism. That makes them 'crazy' ? Well maybe you are right - glad you come round to Introcluses position at last. btw - re your link to Jabotinsky - a book which states many inaccuracies.

But re secular zionism it states;

Quote: ...the majority of Zionists throughout the history of the movement have been not religious, but secular in orientation.

- like to know his statistical evidence/proof for coming to that conclusion. Did he audit all Zionists? lol

Quote:The same can be said about Jewish citizens of the state of Israel today: about 75 percent of this population is secular, and staunchly so.

^ the inference here being that even those supporting secularism are not religious. Though, as you are aware secularism is not atheism. Id like to read the stats that claim Israelis are atheists. The recognition of a plurality in approaching spiritual belief isnt the same as a negation of religious belief or even of the negation of the recognition of religious texts.

Quote: It is therefore important that we also take a careful look at this form of Zionism. Prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, it was in fact Zionism in its secular form that produced the movement's most violent adherents. The forefather of militaristic secular Zionism was Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940), who headed the Revisionist party in the early Zionist congresses. Jabotinsky was not really an ultranationalist. He had too much admiration for the British and too much regard for democracy and liberalism to be classified under that rubric. He was also a realist who understood that the Jewish community in Palestine was too weak to win a military struggle against the British. Nonetheless, Jabotinsky was a nationalist who believed in militarism as the means of forwarding the aims of Zionism and that a Jewish state should be established on both sides of the Jordan River. He also believed that a confrontation with the Palestinians was inevitable and that the question of who would rule Palestine would have to be settled by armed confrontation. Moreover, Jabotinsky's political actions did not usually convey his liberal side, and therefore his right-wing side was most influential. He created the Beitar youth movement, which fostered military values and glorified Israel's military past, as exemplified by Bar Kokhba and Masada.

^
so therefore if the majority of Israelis are secular Zionists and secular Zionists are epitomised as violent militarists ergo..... ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_..._Israel.22

Im reading about this^ at the moment with the texts written by Josephus. Ill come back to you on more of those points you mention.

These threads are morphing into the same subject.

hahaha - get the adverts on this page now;

Quote:Rabbi For Mixed Marriages Rabbin Pour Mariages Mixtes Based in Europe. Deutsch, etc. http://www.rabbi.eu.com

"Shocking" Free Horoscope What Does 2012 Have In Store For You? Shockingly Accurate. See Free! http://www.PremiumAstrology.com

Marry Latvian Woman Pretty Latvian Girls Seeking Real Men for Serious Relations! AnastasiaDates.com

lol