This is my disclaimer to the series entitled Does Jewish Law Justify Killing Civilians?
Pro-Israeli pundits often argue that they have a problem with “Islamism,” which they define as the politicization of the religion of Islam. Prof. Jeffrey Herf of the University of Maryland clarifies, for example, that he doesn’t have a problem with Islam but with “Islamism,” a religio-political ideology enjoining Muslims to reestablish the pan-Islamic Caliphate.
If pro-Israeli propagandists insist that “political Islam”–which they call Islamism–is the problem, then in a similar vein am I arguing that Religious Zionism, not Judaism, is the problem. It is the mixing of the political ideology Zionism with Judaism that I criticize. I believe criticizing Judaism en toto would be Anti-Semitic. Judaism, without the infusion of Zionism into it, is–in my opinion–a wonderful religion. I believe it would be absolutely detestable to take my criticisms of Religious Zionism and use them to justify vilifying Judaism as a whole.
* * * * *
The dangers of falling into Anti-Semitism are very real. Historically, Anti-Semitism has been a major problem, and it continues to be in some parts of the world today. One of the primary ways in which Anti-Semites unfairly targeted Jews was to vilify Halakha, digging up intolerant views in the rabbinical tradition to smear Judaism with.
But herein lies an irony: many Zionist Jews are now joining Anti-Muslim Christians in vilifying the Islamic tradition in a very similar way. Once Halakha was the target of bigots; today, it is Sharia. Rabbi Eliyahu Stern has written an excellent article about this topic, entitled Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America.
I will be applying the same standards our opponents apply to the Islamic tradition to the Jewish one, to show that Judaism is equally vulnerable to such criticisms. It is hoped that this exercise will encourage people of Judeo-Christian background to be more hesitant in vilifying and targeting Islam. This is purely an exercise in thought, a what if scenario (what if we applied the same standards to your religion as you do onto others?) designed to be the antidote to religious and cultural arrogance.
By clarifying that this constitutes an “exercise in thought” one should know that I am not saying Judaism is XYZ because of ABC, but rather simply that if you insist on arguing that Islam is XYZ due to ABC then–based on your own logic–Judaism and Christianity are also XYZ because they too have ABC. This is a what if? and an if-then argument.
* * * * *
This is not to say, however, that religion has nothing to do with the matter. I am extremely critical of Religious Zionism, which has a very real and deleterious impact in world affairs. Religious Zionists are now among the most influential voices in Israel’s hawkish right-wing, using religion to justify even more regressive policies towards the Palestinians. Dr. Claudia Baumgart notes in Democracy, Diversity, and Conflict: Religious Zionism and Israeli Foreign Policy that Religious Zionism “started to play a major role” in Israeli foreign policy by the late 1960′s. Today, its impact is absolutely pernicious.
Religious Zionism went even further than secular Zionism, declaring the settlement of Palestinian land–all of Palestine–a mitzvah, a religious obligation under Jewish law. While it may be possible to convince secular Zionists of the need for a two-state solution, this is not possible with Religious Zionists who believe it is forbidden in their religion–nay, it is a blasphemy of the highest order and greatest magnitude–to cede even one inch of Eretz Israel to the Palestinians. This is why Religious Zionism is a major impediment to peace in the region.
Much like how Radical and Ultra-Conservative Islam is a problem (“Islamists” as some incorrectly say), so too is Religious Zionism a major problem. I agree with Dr. Baumgart’s assessment that “religion is not an independent cause of conflict in and between states. But it can be an important intervening variable…” In other words, Religious Zionism did not independently and all by itself create the problem of Israeli oppression of Palestinians, but it certainly is one important causative factor among a myriad of others.
This is of course not much different than my view of Radical and Ultra-Conservative Islam. Some critics may assume that I do not think Radical and Ultra-Conservative Islam are part of the problem–that only American and Israeli foreign policy are to blame. This is incorrect: I believe that terrorism is the result of a myriad of factors, and although American and Israeli neo-colonialism certainly tops the list, Radical and Ultra-Conservative Islam plays an important role as well.
Criticism of Religious Zionism should not tarnish Judaism as a whole no more than criticism of Radical and Ultra-Conservative Islam should tarnish Islam as a whole. One should stay clear of the bigotry that would compel oneself to smear an entire faith for the actions of a particular strand of a religion.
* * * * *
My need to criticize Religious Zionism is also founded on the link between Zionism and Islamophobia. Pro-Israeli apologists are often anti-Muslim; conversely, anti-Muslim bigots are almost invariably pro-Israeli. In fact, Islamophobes fanatically support the state of Israel, which they see as the embodiment of the Crusader state in the heartland of the infidel Muslim world. Meanwhile, Israelis see the Islamophobes as useful to their cause against their Muslim foes. Often, however, there is no distinction between the two: Zionist Islamophobes form a large chunk of the anti-Muslim camp. Pamela Geller, an extremist Zionist Islamophobe, is a case in point. In light of this, it is important to hold Religious Zionism to the same standard that these Zionists/Islamophobes so mirthfully apply to Islam.
* * * * *
One may quite reasonably criticize my choice of title, “The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justifies Killing Civilians:” after all, it does not make it clear that I am herein criticizing the Halakha of Religious Zionists, not of all Jews. This is acceptable criticism, which I agree with in principle.
However, remember that this article series is a “thought exercise:” the entire purpose is to show how Judaism and Christianity could not possibly live up to the high standards anti-Muslim Jews and Christians insist on applying to Islam. Our Islamophobic opponents certainly do not differentiate between different interpretations of Sharia. They take Radical and/or Ultra-Conservative interpretations of Islamic law as The Sharia. Likewise, I will take the Orthodox Jewish interpretation of Halakha–as understood by “mainstream” Modern Orthodoxy–to be The Halakha. Then, we will see how much anti-Muslim Jews and Christians like it. How will Pamela Geller respond to holding her religious faith up to the same standards she insists upon for Islam?
* * * * *
Having said all of this, the primary reason I chose to speak about Halakha is that it is our opponents themselves who invoked the comparison between the supposedly peaceful Judeo-Christian tradition on the one hand and the supposedly warlike Islamic tradition on the other. This argument–that the modern-day Judeo-Christian interpretations are overwhelmingly peaceful, whereas those of Islam are warlike–is raised by both the King and Queen of Islamophobia, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.
Robert Spencer’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) invokes this comparison multiple times. For example, he says on p.31:
When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don’t interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent action against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretive traditions that have moved away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretive tradition. The jihad passages in the Qur’an are anything but a dead letter.
Meanwhile, the Queen of Islamophobia published a letter by David Yerushalmi which said:
[T]he historical comparison between the response to sharia in this country and Europe’s objection to Jewish law centuries earlier is a result of poor scholarship and faulty logic. Jewish law, certainly since the destruction of the Jewish Commonwealth almost two thousand years ago, has had nothing to do with political power or the desire to effect dominion over another people.
To the contrary, the opposition to sharia is the fact that throughout the Muslim world, sharia is the call to an exclusive Islamic political power with hegemonic designs (see the two most prominent surveys cited here: http://mappingsharia.com/?page_id=425). The war doctrine of jihad is part and parcel of sharia. It is alive and well as such throughout the Muslim world.
Therefore, I am left no choice but to compare Islamic understandings of religious law to their Jewish counterparts. This comparison was foisted upon me by my opponents. There is no way to disabuse the King and Queen of Islamophobia (and their loyal subjects) of their claims except to respond in the way I am.
Naturally, “bystanders” will be caught in the crossfire. Good-hearted, fellow Jews may be offended by such an article series that takes such a critical look at Jewish law. This is why I explained my absolute reluctance to go down this path in my opening disclaimer. But, the constant barrage of Islamophobic polemics, encouraged by Israeli activists, convinces me that this is something unavoidable. Thus it is so, that with a grudging heart, I proceed forth.
* * * * *
Update I:
It is true that Ultra-Orthodox Judaism within Israel is just as disquieting as Modern Orthodox Judaism (as I will show in a follow-up article). This is due to their unthinking acceptance of Zionist ideology. On the other hand, those Ultra-Orthodox Jews who forcefully reject Zionism, such as the Neturei Karta, do not justify Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians. Perhaps then it would be more appropriate to say that Zionism, not just Religious Zionism, is the problem. Once again, however, it should be stressed that it is the mixing of a racist political ideology with religion that is to be condemned, not the religion itself.
Update II:
A reader who posts under the user name “Just Stopping By” gave some valid criticism in the comments section, arguing that it would be too broad a generalization to categorize all Religious Zionism as one way–that dissenting opinions do exist. Admittedly, this article series does deal in some generalizations, but these are acceptable, I think, in the context of this being a “thought exercise.” One could, for example, hardly expect Islamophobes to recognize that even in Ultra-Conservative Islam there exists nuance.
Having said that, it is fair criticism–especially in an article intended to be a disclaimer and explanation of my viewpoints–that I should recognize the existence of a spectrum of views in Religious Zionism, instead of viewing it as one rigid monolith. This I readily admit, even though I of course disagree with Religious Zionism as a whole, just as I do Ultra-Conservative Islam.
Update III:
Two additional points need to be addressed here: the first is my choice to use Carlos Latuff’s artwork. I was unfamiliar with him until I started searching for images to use in my article series, and realized that I’ve used one of his images in the past (without properly accrediting him). My use of some of his cartoons should not be seen as an endorsement of his political views, which are not very clear to me. One can only speculate what a cartoonist’s political views are based on his comics. The images I chose are very applicable to the article series, and that is why I used them. Nothing more, nothing less. To give credit where credit is due, I do think Carlos Latuff is a very gifted artist and political cartoonist.
I have seen accusations against him by pro-Israeli apologists that he is an Anti-Semite. These do not seem to be anything other than the typical Israeli tactic of accusing Israel’s critics of Anti-Semitism in order to vilify and silence them. One critic claimed that Latuff uses images of “hook-nosed Jews.” However, this seems baseless to me: notice the perfectly normal nose of the Israeli soldier below. One could hardly expect a critic of Israel’s war crimes to portray IDF soldiers as anything but evil. This hardly amounts to Anti-Semitism. Would these pro-Israeli apologists desire political cartoonists to draw Israeli soldiers with roses coming out of their butts?
The second accusation I have seen against him is that his cartoons use the Star of David. However, he explained to the Guardian:
Part of the supposed ‘evidence’ for my antisemitism is the fact that I’ve used the Star of David, which is a symbol of Judaism . . . But check all my artworks – you’ll find that the Star of David is never drawn alone. It’s always part of the Israeli flag. Yes, it’s a religious motif, but in Israel it has been applied to a state symbol; and it’s the institutions of the state – the politicians and the army – that I’m targeting. Including the flag of Israel in a cartoon is no more an attack on Judaism than including the flag of Turkey would be an attack on Islam.
The tactic of smearing critics of Israel with the “Anti-Semitic” slur is perfectly pictured by Latuff himself:
I do think some of Latuff’s comics may be over the top and are beyond my comfort level, such as this depiction of an Israeli soldier, which is not Anti-Semitic but just too hyperbolic for me. One can understand that an artist might want to push the boundaries and invoke strong reactions from his work. In any case, do I have to agree with every single one of a political cartoonist’s comics before I can reproduce any of them?
The other issue is my reliance on Dr. Norman Finkelstein’s work. He is one of the world’s leading experts of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and it thus seems obvious why I would draw on his writings. Despite my deep respect for his scholarship and his person, I must however issue a clear disclaimer distancing myself from his equivocation in response to a question about Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli civilians. I categorically reject all attacks targeting civilians, no matter who does them. After all, my entire article series is designed to point out the hypocrisy of anti-Muslim Jews and Christians who condemn Muslims for what they themselves endorse (i.e. the targeting and killing of civilians). If I would condone such terror attacks, this would be another layer of hypocrisy.
Along these lines, I might as well also state my views on Hamas and Hezbollah, since pro-Israeli apologists and Islamophobes use this as a sort of litmus test to silence opposition (DO YOU CONDEMN HAMAS? DO YOU?). Let it be known then that I condemn and reject Hamas and Hezbollah. Although I recognize the right of the Palestinian people to defend their land and resist occupation (to deny them this right while accepting the right of the occupying power to “defend itself” is the height of colonialist mentality), under no circumstances–none whatsoever–is one allowed to target and kill civilians. Even if Hamas and Hezbollah were to categorically renounce such tactics (and back up their words with actions), I would still not support these groups, which–like the Israeli and Jewish groups I will discuss–hold extremist religious views.
This does not mean that I do not “understand” why some occupied Palestinians would resort to such tactics. (One cannot say the same for Israelis, who are the occupiers.) “Understand” here is to be understood in the sense that one “understands” why a criminal was led to a life of crime due to an abused childhood. This “understanding” does not equate to condoning, accepting, or justifying.
The desire to support Hamas and Hezbollah is born out of emotionalism, not principled ethics. Many Muslims feel the need to side with “the Muslim side,” just as many Jews feel compelled to support “the Jewish state.” I do not support groups or states, but rather ethics and principles. Groups and states will always let you down; ethics and principles won’t.
October 4th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
I am in substantial agreement with you. When it comes to religious Zionism, many of these folks who should know their Torah and Talmud bend over backwards making up their own laws (you can kill the goyim; Palestinians are essentially Amalekites) or ignoring REAL biblical law (such as the prohibition of destroying orchards in time of war). In essence, religion becomes subservient to their political goals. So if you are not a yeshiva student on some remote hilltop, learning all this mutant theology, you’re at quite a disadvantage in a state that elevates their militant form of “orthodox” Judaism. Those of us who have the added disadvantage of living in the Diaspora and appreciating the First Amendment don’t “get” religious Zionism for other reasons. But, yeah, the fundamentalists with their politicized version of our religions are certainly making a mess of things for all of us.
October 4th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Thanks for your comment, David.
I can say the same for your comment: I am in substantial agreement with you.
What I would stress is that both Jews and Muslims (and people of all faiths) need to make an active, concerted effort to view their religious scriptures with the eye of ethical compassion. Doing so will often lead to different conclusions than one would reach simply adopting the traditional views espoused by men who lived in very different times.
October 4th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
” I categorically reject all attacks targeting civilians, no matter who does them.”
I agree, and by “no matter who does them,” I also include states as well as non-state actors.
You gave reasons for morally opposing targeting civilians by Hamas, and I agree with that was well. I would like to add that terrorism is also a bad idea strategically. The Palestinians have growing worldwide support which can be harnessed in a positive way. Terrorism undermines that support.
October 4th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Thank you Danios for yet another contribution. I for one really appreciate your efforts.
I just wanted to point out one thing though. The earliest source of, at least some kind of proto-Zionism, is in fact to be traced back to the scripture it self. What this means is that the political secular conception of Herzlian Zionism, allthough non-religious in nature, actually in some manner allude to its early Biblical predecessor. The idea of a Jewish Holy Land just happened to rubb off on its “non g-dly” counterpart. To clarify: Zionism, in its several shapes, ultimatily is liased by what (or preferably HOW) the Bible define the Jew. The very name of Israel, though a northern polythestric tribe, is found in the Bible.
Zionism per se can’t be accused of being a monolithic and uniform concept. Indeed, even the extreme Neturei Karta are Zionist: they just reject the current form. Based on the Talmudic Three Oaths, many religious groups do in fact turn down the contemporary Zionist establishment as it contradicts their understanding of the Oral tradition – since it specifically is conflicting with the religiously, by G-d, sanctioned state: where bloodshed is strictly forbidden. I would argue, at least to some point, that religious Zionism to an extant, depending on which one of all the interpretations one may argue for, are much more peace-loving than the current state of Zionism in Israel: meaning for example the Likkudan idea.
Zionism, wheather secular or religious, are not undiversified. The very nature of Zionism is a spectrume of theorizing.
/Avraham
October 4th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
The comments section of the Guardian article doesn’t give me much hope; especially the post about “hoping” that the cartoon with an America/E.U. flag planted into a Libyan oil well “comes trues.” The loony obviously doesn’t know about the history of Middle Eastern countries like Iran.
As for the excellent article (as always), I particularly liked the last sentence:
“I do not support groups or states, but rather ethics and principles. Groups and states will always let you down; ethics and principles won’t.”
October 4th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Danios:
While I imagine that I will find some things you will say rather uncomfortable, given the quality of your recent series on religion, I am looking forward to this series. This is especially true given your statement, “One should stay clear of the bigotry that would compel oneself to smear an entire faith for the actions of a particular strand of a religion.”
In that regard, perhaps you should be clear if or when you are talking about certain strands of religious Zionism. For example, you say, “While it may be possible to convince secular Zionists of the need for a two-state solution, this is not possible with Religious Zionists who believe it is forbidden in their religion–nay, it is a blasphemy of the highest order and greatest magnitude–to cede even one inch of Eretz Israel to the Palestinians.” Actually, that cleary is not true not for all religious Zionists. While your statement is true for many religious Zionists, it famously was not true for R. Ovadia Yosef (who is and was no lover of Palestinians) about two decades ago nor for the now-defunct Meimad party or various prominent religious Zionists in the past and today. Talking about religious Zionists broadly while excluding such examples from consideration would be similar to talking about the views of religious Americans active in influencing public debate as being right-wing while not mentioning Rev. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. and those who shared his beliefs.
I trust that you will do your best to be fair in this series, but the statement that I quoted in this paragraph would jump out as obviously overbroad to people who followed this debate or followed Israeli politics closely, as governments teetered and fell on whether certain religious Zionists would go along with negotiations with the Palestinians. I don’t know what your knowledge in this area is, and perhaps you did know of these examples, but I imagine that many of your readers would not. I think your articles will be stronger if you did acknowledge (and maybe you do plan to) contrary views within religious Zionism.
October 4th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
@Danios
I beg to differ:
Your article is enlightening and you are, as always, gaining my respect and admiration for your intelligence and your sincere intentions.
HOWEVER, I find the following very problematic: “I believe criticizing Judaism en toto would be Anti-Semitic. Judaism, without the infusion of Zionism into it, is–in my opinion–a wonderful religion.”
I beg to differ for many reason:
1. I think criticism of Judaism (or any religion for that matter) does not constitute antisemitism in it self. Many people are highly critical of all religions (all aspects of religiosity), including Judaism and Islam, and still aren’t Islamophobes or antisemites.
2. In many articles you, while refuting the Islamophobes’ endeavors to single out Islam in criticism, you clarified how Judaism and Christianity are also violent religions. So criticizing Judaism per se does not amount to antisemetism.
3. Antisemitism is the hatred or animosity towards JEWS and Judaism in particular, not the criticism of Judaism (whether in toto or not). I don’t know if there’s an official definition. But if we depart from this definition we are stuck in a logical trap and endanger free speech and thinking.
4. I am not an Islamophobes or antisemitic, but I am highly critical of the Abrahamic religions (actually all religions), not the everyday practitioners, but the disciplines and the extremist practitioners. I do not hate religious people, and refuse to be called anti-religious. Most of my family are practicing Muslims.
If I am getting you all wrong, please clarify.
Thank you and I appreciate your magnanimous and indefatigable efforts and open-mindedness.
October 4th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
@ Just Stopping By:
Your input is, as always, very valuable. I responded to your comment in Update II above (I switched around the Updates for better flow).
Basically, I conceded your point. Thank you.
October 4th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
@ Nemo Fish:
I may not agree with everything you said, but I do agree with a crucial part of it. Let me clarify:
If you single out Judaism for criticism, then I think this is Anti-Semitic. In your case, you are an “equal opportunity hater,” so to speak, and therefore are not Anti-Semitic.
However, in my case, I find “equal opportunity hating” to be somewhat intolerant, inappropriate, and unhelpful. But I wouldn’t call you Anti-Semitic (or Islamophobic). It is the specific targeting of a religion for special scrutiny over others that I consider “-phobic.”
One must be weary of course of people who troll the internet vilifying Muslims and then whenever they are called out on this they claim to be “equal opportunity haters.” Their deeds say otherwise. I know you not to be one of those (based on your posting history), but these type of trolls do certainly exist in large numbers.
But for me specifically, certainly it would be a case of bigotry if I vilified Judaism en toto, since I have in the past expressed my distaste for a similar treatment of Islam.
October 4th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Danios:
Thanks for Update II. As I said, I imagine that I will find some of what you say uncomfortable reading. But I have found that your work tends to be well researched and well reasoned, even if there are some points where I disagree with you. As such, I find it to be a useful part of honest intellectual discourse that I should take seriously.
While I have always found much of the rantings of Islamophobes to be intellectually lacking, I find that reading your work highlights double standards that many Islamophobes employ that I may have previously missed, and also gives me more of a feel for how their writings may come across emotionally to a Muslim audience. In short, I value the pieces that you have been putting out and look forward to digging into them.
October 4th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
@Danios
I see what your saying, but “hate” and “criticism” are totally different things. You of all people know that very well.
If we equate “criticism” with “hate” we’ll have a huge problem: most people of all religions are “critical” (openly or secretly) in a way but not necessarily “hateful” of other religions and of atheism. We can’t accuse them all of hate.
The distinction between “hate”, “criticism”, and “equal opportunity haters” trying to pass as “critics” is in the wording, diction, terminology, tone, and usage of qualifiers. When Spencer says something like: you should cast doubt over all Muslims because you can not distinguish a good Muslim from and extremist Muslim. It’s very clear where and how to categorize him.
October 4th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Israel has the right to exist and Palestinians have the right to their own country. Is people like Fatah and Ehud Olmert that made this situation impossible!!!
October 4th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
@ Just Stopping By:
While I have always found much of the rantings of Islamophobes to be intellectually lacking, I find that reading your work highlights double standards that many Islamophobes employ that I may have previously missed, and also gives me more of a feel for how their writings may come across emotionally to a Muslim audience.
That is the entire purpose of my writing, and I am glad that it accomplishes that. In the process, I understand that it can leave one uncomfortable. This, I think, may be necessary to really help feel how Muslims must feel when their religion is discussed in a similar way–without the repeated caveats and disclaimers I make sure to include.
Thank you again for your input and critical feedback.
October 4th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
@ Nemo Fish:
The distinction between “hate”, “criticism”, and “equal opportunity haters” trying to pass as “critics” is in the wording, diction, terminology, tone, and usage of qualifiers.
I agree.
October 5th, 2011 at 12:25 am
Carlos’ excuse doesn’t work; as you yourself pointed out the crescent symbol is actually from Turkic paganism which was only adopted by Muslims due to Ottoman colonialism, its not really an Islamic symbol, besides adding to your hypocrisy you condemned Israelis for burning a Turkish flag.
October 5th, 2011 at 1:25 am
Great article, Danios. I feel the same way about not wanting to go the “tit for tat” approach regarding these issues, but sometimes they are literally the only way forward.
October 5th, 2011 at 3:41 am
I just want to say I would never justify murder, that is all
October 5th, 2011 at 4:54 am
@christian-friend
With due respect, framing the solution as to simple “right to exist” and “right to nation” isnt going to work. What type of existance and what type of nation they have right to is the crux of the conflict.
What matters is that one persons just right should not be somehow superior and obtained by denying somebody elses just right. If we have situation where both have just right and clashes then, we need a just solution that is just to both sides or you end up with survival of the fittest/might is right.
October 5th, 2011 at 5:20 am
Correcting a typo I made: Spectrum*
October 5th, 2011 at 11:53 am
I hope danios also connects the religious view with the political apartheid policy and mind set. The zionist politics continue to use hamas and “militant Islam”, as Benjamin Netanyahu put it, as a scape goat to hide behind. By getting zionists own views regarding the native Palestinian people, arab neighbours and unveiling their utopian goal and visions at large would put things in balanced perspective.
October 6th, 2011 at 1:24 am
First of all you equate Islamism to Zionism which is hypocritical and reveals your bias there are multiple Islamic theocracies with far more brutal pasts, yet there is one zionist state which is not even a theocracy. This site has praised Erdogan the head of a state currently occupying Kurdish and Cypriot lands, this site has smeared Hitchens as an “Islamophobe” merely for criticizing Pakistan the country that formed the taliban. In other words LW supports two of the most colonial states in the mid east thus its hypocritical to single Israel out as ‘colonialist.’
October 6th, 2011 at 2:59 am
C’mon danios ?? The orthodox jews run Israel not the zionist.Zionism is a movement not a religion there atheist’s ..People always claim it’s not the Jews its the Zionists…..Rally ???? Then why do the Orthodox run the show afterall the majority of the settlers are Orthodox…
Keep it real …
October 6th, 2011 at 9:18 am
@ Zain:
Religious Zionists are Orthodox Jews.
October 6th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Violent extremism in the name of Zionism is the problem.
Whether the violent extremists are religiously observant or draw on Jewish law for their rationalization is irrelevant.
Many of the worst war criems committed by Israel happened under the adminsitrations of secular/nonobservant Jews.
October 6th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
I agree with Ian Gould and that is always my stance towards any sort of ‘evil’. Doesn’t matter where it comes from, it should be opposed.
October 6th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
People who ask if one supports Hamas, they can be informed that even Israel at one time supported Hamas, not to mention Israel did everything possible to help launch them.
October 7th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Isn’t Atheist Zionism, not Judaism the problem?
October 10th, 2011 at 2:51 am
@Muslim. Although there are some radical atheist zionists, the ‘Jewish State’ policies are mainly influenced by Judaist Zionists
October 17th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Quote: “Pro-Israeli pundits often argue that they have a problem with “Islamism,” which they define as the politicization of the religion of Islam. Prof. Jeffrey Herf of the University of Maryland clarifies, for example, that he doesn’t have a problem with Islam but with “Islamism,” a religio-political ideology enjoining Muslims to reestablish the pan-Islamic Caliphate.”
Reply: Islamism is often a vague term. Muslims do have a religious obligation to establish a unified community. This does not mean however, that it is to be done using violence. Muslims have a right to do this. Sure, Prof. Jeffrey Herf may have a problem with what is labeled “Islamism” However, where does he get his views in support of to hold this opinion? The methods used by extremist militants are not regarded as permissible in Islam. However, Muslims do have an obligation to come together and establish one unified community.
October 17th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Quote: “The dangers of falling into Anti-Semitism are very real. Historically, Anti-Semitism has been a major problem, and it continues to be in some parts of the world today. One of the primary ways in which Anti-Semites unfairly targeted Jews was to vilify Halakha, digging up intolerant views in the rabbinical tradition to smear Judaism with.
But herein lies an irony: many Zionist Jews are now joining Anti-Muslim Christians in vilifying the Islamic tradition in a very similar way. Once Halakha was the target of bigots; today, it is Sharia. Rabbi Eliyahu Stern has written an excellent article about this topic, entitled Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America.”
Reply:Yes, this is most likely true; that bigots also once did exploit Halakha laws. According to the Jewish encyclopedia:
“The term ‘Anti-Semitism’ has its origin in the ethnological theory that the Jews, as Semites, are entirely different from the Aryan, or Indo-European, populations and can never be amalgamated with them. The word implies that the Jews are not opposed on account of their religion, but on account of their racial characteristics.” (Anti-Semitism. Gotthard Deutsch. The Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view_friendly.jsp?artid=1603&letter=A).
Note: “The word (Anti-Semitism) implies that the Jews are not opposed on account of their religion, but on account of their racial characteristics.”
Thus, criticizing Halakha laws on a non-racial basis does not constitute anti-semitism.
May 7th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
I think that the continued conflict, or “crusades” so to speak, between Jews & Palestinians, has much to do with fairness, and the enactment of UN Resolution 181 is seen as a grave violation of Human Rights from the Pro-Palestinian side, or on the other hand, as a manifestation of Human Rights from the pro-Israeli/Zionism side, as Jews have suffered thousand years of Pogroms and then Holocaust. But the constituents of the Arab world who stand behind Pro-Palestinian obviously don’t feel that Palestinians/Arabs are to blame for all the Pogroms and Holocaust suffered by the Jews, and certainly are not responsible for the Romans evicting Jews out of the so-called Holy Land. I think the Jews who benefit from the hundreds of billions of dollars of support from the West are in the position to set the record straight for Humanity, or they can continue to help deface Humanity and the Freedom and Democracy much espoused by the West.