|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 8, 2014 18:15:13 GMT -6
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_AMERICAN_JEWS_ISRAEL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTI tend to be fairly suspicious of nationalism in general, so this interests me. Not being Jewish, I can't say for sure, but from the outside, I am frustrated by the sort of thinking that holds that to be a good Jew, one must support increasing settlement in the West Bank and moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem. It seems to me that a cultural heritage as rich as Judaism can probably support pluralistic views on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by howiedds1 on Jun 8, 2014 20:24:05 GMT -6
Good article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Flitz.
"American Jews have always vigorously debated Israeli policy, but mostly within the community and with an understanding that differences would be set aside if the Jewish state faced an existential threat. But the discussion within the U.S. has become more reflective of the very broad debate within Israel."
I think the above quote from the article is telling. I can tell you that there has always been the political debate among American Jews between conservative and liberal elements over Israeli policies much as there was in Israel itself. There was, however, an unwritten rule not to air our American, internal disagreements publicly. Given the "even handed" approach among American, non-Jewish liberals and academics, which often meant condemning Israel for "knowing better" and "expecting more from Jews," that seemed like a reasonable rule so as not to give the pro-Palestinian mill more grist. It was the knee jerk reaction to any criticism of Israel in a generation that experienced the news of the Holocaust, Israel's founding, its near destruction.
With each passing generation, however, and the successes of 1956, 1967, and 1973 along with the welcoming assurance of America towards its Jews, the disagreements which were always there among us seem to be more front and center with less concern about what "the goyim think."
Personally, I have always believed that a two state solution is the only possible one. I think Jews created a Palestinian "zionism" that is every bit as demanding as our own zionism and will have to be satisfied. Various polls of the Israelis have confirmed that the majority agree with a two state solution. The problem has been, as Abba Eban put it back in the 1970's, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
The peace movement in Israel as well as among Jews in the US was eviscerated in 2000 at Camp David II. President Clinton had Arafat and Ehud Barak, then prime minister of Israel, meet. The Israeli offer was 97% of the territory of the West Bank and Gaza,(with 3% of pre 1967 Israel), 99% of the Palestinian population, the Muslim and Christian quarters of Jerusalem for the Palestinian capital, and the Temple Mount; Arafat walked out. The right wing in Israel politics has dominated ever since.
The Palestinian position from the beginning has been "from the river to the sea," one Islamic state in which Jews would be in the minority. There may be liberal elements among them who would settle for less, but they have to duke it out among themselves before there is a partner with whom Israel can negotiate.
As far as settlements are concerned, they were not a problem when Israel pulled out of the Sinai in 1979-1982 or from Gaza in 2005. The two state solution would have the borders drawn around Jerusalem so as to incorporate 80% of the settlers in exchange for that 3% of pre-1967 Israel I referred to earlier. (Some American Jews,Republicans who didn't vote for Obama anyway, went nutso when he suggested that negotiations will be based on the 1967 borders WITH ADJUSTMENTS. The adjustments were the 3%, no different than what Israel itself offered in 2000 at Camp David II.)
The outlying settlements would have to be given up as they were in Sinai and Gaza.
Good article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Flitz.
"American Jews have always vigorously debated Israeli policy, but mostly within the community and with an understanding that differences would be set aside if the Jewish state faced an existential threat. But the discussion within the U.S. has become more reflective of the very broad debate within Israel."
I think the above quote from the article is telling. I can tell you that there has always been the political debate among American Jews between conservative and liberal elements over Israeli policies much as there was in Israel itself. There was, however, an unwritten rule not to air our American, internal disagreements publicly. Given the "even handed" approach among American, non-Jewish liberals and academics, which often meant condemning Israel for "knowing better" and "expecting more from Jews," that seemed like a reasonable rule so as not to give the pro-Palestinian mill more grist. It was the knee jerk reaction to any criticism of Israel in a generation that experienced the news of the Holocaust, Israel's founding, its near destruction.
With each passing generation, however, and the successes of 1956, 1967, and 1973 along with the welcoming assurance of America towards its Jews, the disagreements which were always there among us seem to be more front and center with less concern about what "the goyim think."
Personally, I have always believed that a two state solution is the only possible one. I think Jews created a Palestinian "zionism" that is every bit as demanding as our own zionism and will have to be satisfied. Various polls of the Israelis have confirmed that the majority agree with a two state solution. The problem has been, as Abba Eban put it back in the 1970's, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
The peace movement in Israel as well as among Jews in the US was eviscerated in 2000 at Camp David II. President Clinton had Arafat and Ehud Barak, then prime minister of Israel, meet. The Israeli offer was 97% of the territory of the West Bank and Gaza,(with 3% of pre 1967 Israel), 99% of the Palestinian population, the Muslim and Christian quarters of Jerusalem for the Palestinian capital, and the Temple Mount; Arafat walked out. The right wing in Israel politics has dominated ever since.
The Palestinian position from the beginning has been "from the river to the sea," one Islamic state in which Jews would be in the minority. There may be liberal elements among them who would settle for less, but they have to duke it out among themselves before there is a partner with whom Israel can negotiate.
As far as settlements are concerned, they were not a problem when Israel pulled out of the Sinai in 1979-1982 or from Gaza in 2005. The two state solution would have the borders drawn around Jerusalem so as to incorporate 80% of the settlers in exchange for that 3% of pre-1967 Israel I referred to earlier. (Some American Jews,Republicans who didn't vote for Obama anyway, went nutso when he suggested that negotiations will be based on the 1967 borders WITH ADJUSTMENTS. The adjustments were the 3%, no different than what Israel itself offered in 2000 at Camp David II.)
The outlying settlements would have to be given up as they were in Sinai and Gaza.
Good article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Flitz.
"American Jews have always vigorously debated Israeli policy, but mostly within the community and with an understanding that differences would be set aside if the Jewish state faced an existential threat. But the discussion within the U.S. has become more reflective of the very broad debate within Israel."
I think the above quote from the article is telling. I can tell you that there has always been the political debate among American Jews between conservative and liberal elements over Israeli policies much as there was in Israel itself. There was, however, an unwritten rule not to air our American, internal disagreements publicly. Given the "even handed" approach among American, non-Jewish liberals and academics, which often meant condemning Israel for "knowing better" and "expecting more from Jews," that seemed like a reasonable rule so as not to give the pro-Palestinian mill more grist. It was the knee jerk reaction to any criticism of Israel in a generation that experienced the news of the Holocaust, Israel's founding, its near destruction.
With each passing generation, however, and the successes of 1956, 1967, and 1973 along with the welcoming assurance of America towards its Jews, the disagreements which were always there among us seem to be more front and center with less concern about what "the goyim think."
Personally, I have always believed that a two state solution is the only possible one. I think Jews created a Palestinian "zionism" that is every bit as demanding as our own zionism and will have to be satisfied. Various polls of the Israelis have confirmed that the majority agree with a two state solution. The problem has been, as Abba Eban put it back in the 1970's, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
The peace movement in Israel as well as among Jews in the US was eviscerated in 2000 at Camp David II. President Clinton had Arafat and Ehud Barak, then prime minister of Israel, meet. The Israeli offer was 97% of the territory of the West Bank and Gaza,(with 3% of pre 1967 Israel), 99% of the Palestinian population, the Muslim and Christian quarters of Jerusalem for the Palestinian capital, and the Temple Mount; Arafat walked out. The right wing in Israel politics has dominated ever since.
The Palestinian position from the beginning has been "from the river to the sea," one Islamic state in which Jews would be in the minority. There may be liberal elements among them who would settle for less, but they have to duke it out among themselves before there is a partner with whom Israel can negotiate.
As far as settlements are concerned, they were not a problem when Israel pulled out of the Sinai in 1979-1982 or from Gaza in 2005. The two state solution would have the borders drawn around Jerusalem so as to incorporate 80% of the settlers in exchange for that 3% of pre-1967 Israel I referred to earlier. (Some American Jews,Republicans who didn't vote for Obama anyway, went nutso when he suggested that negotiations will be based on the 1967 borders WITH ADJUSTMENTS. The adjustments were the 3%, no different than what Israel itself offered in 2000 at Camp David II.)
The outlying settlements would have to be given up as they were in Sinai and Gaza.
|
|
|
|
Post by howiedds on Jun 8, 2014 20:30:32 GMT -6
Sorry about that. I'm rusty
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 8, 2014 22:03:01 GMT -6
Sorry about that. I'm rusty I thought you were Howie? |
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 9, 2014 4:59:40 GMT -6
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_AMERICAN_JEWS_ISRAEL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTI tend to be fairly suspicious of nationalism in general, so this interests me. Not being Jewish, I can't say for sure, but from the outside, I am frustrated by the sort of thinking that holds that to be a good Jew, one must support increasing settlement in the West Bank and moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem. It seems to me that a cultural heritage as rich as Judaism can probably support pluralistic views on the subject. I have several Jewish friends that are Chassidic and they are very anti Zionism and anti-Israel. Just my observations but I find most Zionists, of today, to be Fundamental Christians and not Jewish. The trend I find among Jews is the formation of Israel was a mistake and the Jews are not to have a homeland until after the coming of the Messiah and the rebuilding of the temple. But my views are based upon the Jews I actually know in person. |
|
|
|
Post by howiedds on Jun 9, 2014 8:56:16 GMT -6
Steve:
I thought you were Howie?
You thought I was Howie or you thought I was rusty? I'm both.
Good to see friends again.
|
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jun 9, 2014 9:00:41 GMT -6
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_AMERICAN_JEWS_ISRAEL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTI tend to be fairly suspicious of nationalism in general, so this interests me. Not being Jewish, I can't say for sure, but from the outside, I am frustrated by the sort of thinking that holds that to be a good Jew, one must support increasing settlement in the West Bank and moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem. It seems to me that a cultural heritage as rich as Judaism can probably support pluralistic views on the subject. I have several Jewish friends that are Chassidic and they are very anti Zionism and anti-Israel. Just my observations but I find most Zionists, of today, to be Fundamental Christians and not Jewish. The trend I find among Jews is the formation of Israel was a mistake and the Jews are not to have a homeland until after the coming of the Messiah and the rebuilding of the temple. But my views are based upon the Jews I actually know in person. That is possibly a common view among the Hasidim, doctrinally near the strict end of the Jewish spectrum, since that view conforms to the traditions about the Messiah. However, that is decidedly not the view of my hubby's family whose beliefs hubby labels "Conservadox." There is much favorable discussion of Israel among them, often with the Jewish New Year exhortation, "Next year in Israel," uttered at some point. Beyond that, I'd guess that anti-Israel sentiments are not the view of any clear majority across the spectrum from fundamentalist Judaism to Reform. Maybe Howie will miraculously reappear and offer a far more authoritative assessment. |
|
|
|
Post by howiedds on Jun 9, 2014 9:20:04 GMT -6
Wood:
Historically, dating back to the 19th century when political Zionism began in western and central Europe, there was a negative reaction among the orthodox who believed the re-founding of the state was the prerogative of the Messiah. After the Holocaust, the Orthodox community came around to favor the formation of the state. Nevertheless there is still a fringe element of the chassidic community that rejects the usurpation of the messianic role by people. An even smaller fringe of that fringe actively sides with the Palestinians in denying the state of Israel.
Most Jews today are Zionists in that they are glad that there is an Israel. As is true, however, in Israel, America, and in all nations that have freedom of expression, there is not a unanimous approach to policies.
Among Christians, the fundamentalists are the most ardent supporters of Israel, which raises and interesting dialectic among American Jews regarding their support.
That is not the trend at all. The trend has been to more openly express the disagreements with Israeli policy in ways that were not openly expressed outside the community. These disagreements mirror those among Israelis themselves as one would expect in a free society.
Again, that is very small minority of ultra-orthodox Jews.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 9, 2014 9:21:34 GMT -6
I have several Jewish friends that are Chassidic and they are very anti Zionism and anti-Israel. Just my observations but I find most Zionists, of today, to be Fundamental Christians and not Jewish. The trend I find among Jews is the formation of Israel was a mistake and the Jews are not to have a homeland until after the coming of the Messiah and the rebuilding of the temple. But my views are based upon the Jews I actually know in person. That is possibly a common view among the Hasidim, doctrinally near the strict end of the Jewish spectrum, since that view conforms to the traditions about the Messiah. However, that is decidedly not the view of my hubby's family whose beliefs hubby labels "Conservadox." There is much favorable discussion of Israel among them, often with the Jewish New Year exhortation, "Next year in Israel," uttered at some point. Beyond that, I'd guess that anti-Israel sentiments are not the view of any clear majority across the spectrum from fundamentalist Judaism to Reform. Maybe Howie will miraculously reappear and offer a far more authoritative assessment. I only know one or 2 Jews that are "Conservadox" and that is only online. I can see they are a bit different from the Chassidic I am more familiar with. I notice Howie is online, maybe he will give some input |
|
|
|
Post by howiedds on Jun 9, 2014 9:21:42 GMT -6
You handled it Dot.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 9, 2014 9:31:08 GMT -6
Wood:
Historically, dating back to the 19th century when political Zionism began in western and central Europe, there was a negative reaction among the orthodox who believed the re-founding of the state was the prerogative of the Messiah. After the Holocaust, the Orthodox community came around to favor the formation of the state. Nevertheless there is still a fringe element of the chassidic community that rejects the usurpation of the messianic role by people. An even smaller fringe of that fringe actively sides with the Palestinians in denying the state of Israel.
Most Jews today are Zionists in that they are glad that there is an Israel. As is true, however, in Israel, America, and in all nations that have freedom of expression, there is not a unanimous approach to policies. Among Christians, the fundamentalists are the most ardent supporters of Israel, which raises and interesting dialectic among American Jews regarding their support.
That is not the trend at all. The trend has been to more openly express the disagreements with Israeli policy in ways that were not openly expressed outside the community. These disagreements mirror those among Israelis themselves as one would expect in a free society.
Again, that is very small minority of ultra-orthodox Jews. Thank you Howie, for your input. Very informative. Being Muslim it makes sense most of my Jewish friends will be Chassidic. I live in a limited world, virtually all the Jews I know are Chassidic and most of the Christians are Fundamentalists or Messianic Jews (Which I see as a Christian denomination, not as Jews). So from my viewing area what I see are anti-Zionist Jews and pro-Zionist Christians. Maybe I need to get out more. |
|
|
|
Post by howiedds on Jun 9, 2014 10:30:45 GMT -6
Glad to. I appreciate Flitz bringing me back. Missed doing it.
Why that connection? I have Muslim contacts with whom I dialogue and certainly numerous Muslim patients.
Where do you live?
.
LOL! Don't we all.
|
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jun 9, 2014 10:30:58 GMT -6
Thanks, Howie, for rubber-stamping what I said.
Hubby echoed much of your sentiments although he said that Zionism discussion may be kept more within the community in NYC where he grew up than it is elsewhere. Anyway, he said the topic probably would not be discussed to any extent beyond educational in my presence due to my not being Jewish. I've talked about it some with my in-laws but not much.
As he added, a good many Hasidic customs reflect the group's having originated along the Polish-Russian border in the mid-1800's. They are intent upon preserving conditions of that era. Hence, arranged marriages and other customs long since considered archaic.
Their Eastern European origin is also why men wear those heavy black coats and hats. That style was customary at the time of their origin.
|
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jun 9, 2014 10:43:34 GMT -6
There are Hasidic Jews in North Dakota?
Not saying it isn't possible but would be really uncustomary since they tend to avoid migration except to places with established Hasidic communities.
I know hubby has said that the vast majority live in one area of Brooklyn.
|
|
|
|
Post by howiedds on Jun 9, 2014 10:49:25 GMT -6
Dot:
Yep. He and I agree as I think most Jews would who knew the history of 19th century Europe when political Zionism, as opposed to religious Zionism, began.
Yes, again. It was what Polish/Lithuanian gentle folk wore to Church in 1750 when Chasidism began. It then continued as the "uniform" of the ultra-orthodox in modern times.
|
|
