The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"A Message from Jewish Students at Columbia University"
"Contrary to what many have tried to sell you – no, Judaism cannot be separated from Israel. Zionism is, simply put, the manifestation of that belief."
Throughout the recent campus tumult, media outlets have always been careful to say the Jewish students are part of the "mostly peaceful" protests. The press has dutifully reported about shabbat dinners and Passover seders at the encampments. The message is clear: how can these protests be anti-semitic if Jews are involved? Indeed, the Jewish students at these encampments insist that the Jewish faith is separate from Israel--they maintain that real Jewish values are inconsistent with Zionism.
These arguments have brought to the forefront an issue that has pervaded Judaism for millennia: there is no single Jewish religion. There is one Catholic church, and one set of doctrine. There are a range of Protestant faiths, but when there are broad disagreements, there is a schism, and branches go in different directions. (For an example, look at recent developments in the Methodist church). But for Jews, a formal schism is impossible, and really unnecessary, because different groups within the faith can and have adopted radically different understandings.
This dynamic presented itself (trigger warning) in debates about Judaism and abortion. Some Jewish people claim that scripture imposes something like a religious obligation to have an abortion in certain circumstances. And, they asserted that RFRA compels the state to grant an exemption for women to have an abortion in those circumstances. Other Jewish people vigorously dispute and contest this reading of religious teachings. But for purposes of RFRA, it doesn't matter. The courts can probe sincerity of belief, but they cannot mediate what are and are not the tenets of a particular faith.
This history brings us back to Israel: is Zionism essential to Judaism? The Jewish students wearing kaffiyehs and N95s on the upper west side will tell you the answer is emphatically no. Other Jewish students will say yes. Today, more than 500 Jewish students at Columbia signed a letter to explain why the occupiers have gotten Zionism so wrong.
I'll include some excerpts here, but you should read the entire letter:
Over the past six months, many have spoken in our name. Some are well-meaning alumni or non-affiliates who show up to wave the Israeli flag outside Columbia's gates. Some are politicians looking to use our experiences to foment America's culture war. Most notably, some are our Jewish peers who tokenize themselves by claiming to represent "real Jewish values," and attempt to delegitimize our lived experiences of antisemitism. We are here, writing to you as Jewish students at Columbia University, who are connected to our community and deeply engaged with our culture and history. We would like to speak in our name. . . .
We proudly believe in the Jewish People's right to self-determination in our historic homeland as a fundamental tenet of our Jewish identity. Contrary to what many have tried to sell you – no, Judaism cannot be separated from Israel. Zionism is, simply put, the manifestation of that belief. . . .
Our religious texts are replete with references to Israel, Zion, and Jerusalem. The land of Israel is filled with archaeological remnants of a Jewish presence spanning centuries. Yet, despite generations of living in exile and diaspora across the globe, the Jewish People never ceased dreaming of returning to our homeland — Judea, the very place from which we derive our name, "Jews." Indeed just a couple of days ago, we all closed our Passover seders with the proclamation, "Next Year in Jerusalem!"
How do the Jewish students at the encampments respond to this article? I'm not entirely sure. You'd have to ask them. But one rather common approach is to simply disregard certain religious doctrines that are inconsistent with modern-day values. For example, on Yom Kippur, the tradition is to read a well-known passage from the Book of Leviticus: "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence." Some temples have re-interpreted this provision such that it does not actually prohibit homosexual sodomy. Other congregations simply skip it. Yes, on the holiest day of the year, they just jump over the text, as if it is not there.
It is entirely possible to treat the connection between Judaism and Israel in the same fashion as some treat Leviticus 18:22. Again, there is no equivalent of a pope to mediate what the right Jewish reading of scripture is, or what the right Jewish understanding of Zionism is. Ditto for how Judaism addresses abortion and LGBT issues.
The letter makes several other important points, one of which I have advanced of late: antisemitism manifests itself in every generation in different ways:
This sick distortion illuminates the nature of antisemitism: In every generation, the Jewish People are blamed and scapegoated as responsible for the societal evil of the time. In Iran and in the Arab world, we were ethnically cleansed for our presumed ties to the "Zionist entity." In Russia, we endured state-sponsored violence and were ultimately massacred for being capitalists. In Europe, we were the victims of genocide because we were communists and not European enough. And today, we face the accusation of being too European, painted as society's worst evils – colonizers and oppressors. We are targeted for our belief that Israel, our ancestral and religious homeland, has a right to exist. We are targeted by those who misuse the word Zionist as a sanitized slur for Jew, synonymous with racist, oppressive, or genocidal. We know all too well that antisemitism is shapeshifting.
You should not blithely assume that because Jewish people are part of the protest, it cannot be anti-semitic. As we are reminded often, Justice Thomas, one of the most important African-Americans in American history, is racist because he opposes progressive views on race. Throughout history, regrettably, Jewish people have been on the side of antisemitism--often as part of an attempt to assimilate with the prevailing currents of modern society. There is nothing new under the sun.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It is a terrible reminder of how marginalized and terrorized Jewish students are on today's inclusive college campuses.
Yes, Title VI will eventually rectify the problem (or be deemed irrelevant), but where is the moral outrage from the enlightened virtue signalers?
I thought you didn't care for the moral outrage from the enlightened virtue signalers.
Hypocritical soi-disant enlightened virtue signalers are even more obnoxious than the hypothetical other kind.
From the letter—
"Most notably, some are our Jewish peers who... attempt to delegitimize our lived experiences of antisemitism"
Substitute "Black" for "Jewish", and "racism" for "antisemitism". We'd rightly scoff at someone who condemned, say, Tim Scott or Clarence Thomas on such grounds. Why, then, should we accept a similar argument when it comes from someone pushing a viewpoint of which we approve?
By granting a spurious legitimacy to the "lived experience" argument when it supports our position, we strengthen the use of that same argument by those who hold positions to which we're rightly opposed.
Everyone should, but I'm sure you know it is de rigueur in woke circles that those two are not real blacks.
So you agree the letter is ridiculous?
Dunno how you know what’s de rigueur in woke circles, but I’m not surprised is aligns with your priors.
Insults again, Thanks for honestly admitting you have no better argument.
I provided 2 substantive critiques.
First, that you appeared to deflect from the comment you replied to, not taking a position but bringing up a collateral matter.
Second, that the collateral matter was provided with A) no support, B) posits information I don't know that you would have good access to, and C) that said information is quite convenient for someone who wants to hate the left.
Do you think I failed to get those points across in my earlier, more pithy comment?
Everyone should, but I’m sure you know it is de rigueur in woke circles that those two are not real blacks.
Baseless assertions are worse, IMO, are worse arguments than insults.
Do you object when RW'ers announce that their political opponents are not "real Americans?"
I think you have it in reverse
If Tim Scott or Clarence Thomas said "I speak for all Blacks" or "I speak for all Good Blacks" then yes, they would be rightly derided for that.
But that's not what they say.
It is what the Encampment Bros say about their own Judaism, and they are tokenized that way as "Anti-Zionists Jews", the good Jews, or as Ilhan Omar says "the anti-genocide Jews"
And they are used to defend the most gross statements about other Jews, or again as Omar says "the pro-genocide Jews"
And for that, for allowing themselves to be fetishized and used as shields, and for claiming themselves to represent far larger numbers of American Jewry than they actually do, the Encampment Bros are rightly derided as tokens.
"It is what the Encampment Bros say about their own Judaism"
Do they? Perhaps a citation would help here, evidence that "Encampment Bros" say that they speak for "All Jews?"
No, you have it in reverse. They’re both strawmen, and they both get used in exactly the same way.
Neither Clarence Thomas nor the Encampment Bros claim to speak for all Blacks / Jews.
But in both cases, they hold themselves out as proof against the grievances claimed by their brethren.
See, exactly the same. Egg is right.
Citation missing.
Thanks for the moral support, but VinniUSMC's right—we need a citation here. I've just Googled the phrase ("Clarence Thomas is rightly derided as a token"), and get no results.
It is a bad-faith paraphrase of the last three paragraphs of Jay Ash's comment.
Mea culpa, Michael P and Randal—I didn't catch the paraphrasing.
Are you saying that the general public thinks that it would be better for Boers to run South Africa than for Black people to run it?
What country do you think would be analogous to Israel if we swap “Black” for “Jewish”? I'd like to know why that would make the argument risible.
The Blacks weren't starving when the Boers ran it -- they now are with the ANC running it. I think it is better when people aren't starving.
Pro-tip: there is no way to write a sentence about black people using the phrase "The Blacks" that doesn't sound racist.
So you can actually download the JVP Haggadah at https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/resource/passover-5784-2024-stop-starving-gaza/#7-jvp-haggadah-57842024-exodus-from-zionism to see they chose “skip over it”.
They do quite a bit of skip and much replace as well.
It’s really an amazing document, especially for anyone who says “oh we even held a seder in the encampment!”
The JVP of 2024 Seder begins with a foreword emphasizing how we all still wear masks from COVID (uh huh), declares it to be an Anti-Zionist Haggadah and then has an Introduction that declares Israel to be Pharoah
Page 29 has “10 Spiritual Plagues of Genocidal Zionism”
Their seder ends with:
Closing
There is a custom, upon completing the study of a book of Torah, to proclaim “Chazak, Chazak, V’nit-chazek” which translates as strength, strength, and may we be strengthened. So too, may we be strengthened in ourselves and with each other in our remembering, activism, and solidarity.
We return to our work. There is a path out of the narrow place to liberation. We have traced our
ancestors’ steps; the path is in our bones. Now fortified, nourished. This year in liberation for all. A
future where all people across the region live in safety and lasting peace must start with the U.S.
government ending Israeli impunity and instead back the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice
and equality
they have enough sense not to say, "Next year in Moscow" or "Next year in Poland"
So does the JVP version have the Jews just staying in Egypt?
Khazaria
To the extent that the point of the letter is that Israel can't be protested without those protests being antisemitic, then yeah, there's a shit-ton of legitimate antisemitism afoot.
I don't think legitimizing antisemitism is the best strategy for either Judaism or Israel...
No surprise that Randal claims that antisemitism is legitimate criticism of Israel.
I don't. The Columbia Jewish students do.
No surprise that Randal cannot distinguish between Jewish students even when the whole point of a blog post is about diversity of belief among those students.
Are you drunk at 6 AM? This post is titled A Message from Jewish Students at Columbia University.
Are you familiar with what the definite article "the" means in English?
I'm sorry your reading comprehension is so bad. When I refer to "the Columbia Jewish students" in a post titled A Message from Jewish Students at Columbia University, those are the Columbia Jewish students I'm referring to. Hope that helps!
Your writing ability is what is bad, chief.
Maybe your reading and/or thinking ability as well, because that letter never says anything like what you have attributed to it.
Honest question: How do you deal with Exodus 22:18 --
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”?
Don’t leave us hanging, Dr. Ed—how do you think Jewish people should deal with it?
I have no idea -- my people have trouble with it because of what we did in 1692.
Go ask a rabbi, then.
Don't pick random bits of a holy book and wonder loudly if it could mean it's time for violence.
Makes you seem rather disrespectful of the Jewish faith.
According to Sarcastr0, we should only very respectfully and deferentially ask what it means for a modern organization and quasi-government to gleefully cite their holy books as saying:
Yeah I being overly brief with Ed because he deserves no more than that.
But picking which authorities you find authoritative regarding a faith not your own is just finding over for your bigotry.
Plenty of Imams vociferously disagree with that take. Do you think that they all lying?
if Ed found a rabbi that said Jews should like their fellows if they support the protests, would you think he found a good explication of Judaism?
Turns out that Islam and Judaism and for that matter Christianity contain multitudes.
You (IMO gratuitously and unfairly) characterized Ed's open and non-leading question as "wonder[ing] loudly if it could mean it’s time for violence." His question is way less suggestive than Hamas writing that Hadith into their charter.
Ed's open and non-leading question
Are you that stupid? I think you really may be that stupid.
Do we need to break out the pyramid diagram of arguments again? I think we may need to break out the pyramid diagram of arguments again.
S_0,
The holy books do say what they say. But, do you remember the phrase "cafeteria Catholics?" There are "cafeteria Jews" and "cafeteria" Muslims. And for their clergy are the principal employees of the cafeteria.
Gatekeeping faith is something I don't have good equity in for all but Christianity, but I will say that just socially it's a bad look.
Especially with Judaism. Secular Jews, to hear them talk about it, are often quite passionate about being Jews.
Especially when what may be happening here is un-Jewing some Jews so you can call the protests antisemetic without any awkwardness.
Mr. Ed is disrespectful of all but his own opinions
Kosher snowplows.
If you're asking what Jews think about that passage, we actually spend very little time considering the Anglican Church's scripture.
In every generation, the Jewish People are blamed and scapegoated as responsible for the societal evil of the time.
One societal evil of this time is dropping U.S.-made 2,000-pound bombs on apartment buildings full of women and children. Do that, and yeah, at least some folks in the U.S. will blame you for it. And they will do it without the slightest intention of hindering any better-managed attack on murderous thugs who target Jews. In fact, many will blame such indiscriminate bombings with an eye to encouraging Israeli leaders to steer away from folly likely to undermine world-wide support for the state of Israel.
Which is why they should have nuked Gaza last October.
'And they will do it without the slightest intention of hindering any better-managed attack on murderous thugs who target Jews'.
Question begging. Unsurprising, coming from you.
How about the affixing of blame when it comes to the attempted normalisation of an imperialist apartheid cult that condones and celebrates child marriage, bint 'amm marriages, specific forms of mass slavery, and the cultural appropriation and erasure of indigenous holy sites and property? Do you think certain segments of society will rightfully be blamed for the---insane, hubristic---effort?
Do you think the United States is going to be increasingly blamed now, globally, for the imperial structures it foisted upon the world after WWII? (People here in Europe now openly talk about their governments being US puppets. It's quite refreshing.)
What's it like knowing that your ideology is castigated, globally, and that it is dying?
So, any time Ukraine artillery kills a single Russian person --- it is their fault?
Ukraine and Israel are in quite similar positions. Both were the victims of an aggressor.
But only one is condemned for fighting back.
So, any time Ukraine artillery kills a single Russian person — it is their fault?
Euh yes, who else's fault would it be?
Ukraine and Israel are in quite similar positions.
Except for the facts that:
Ukraine’s rival has a much bigger military than they do, whereas Israel is the one with the much bigger military;
The Ukraine/Russia war is being fought on Ukrainian land, whereas the Israeli/Gaza war is being fought on Palestinian/Gazan land; and
Ukraine is suffering disproportionate civilian casualties due to Russian bombing of Ukrainian population centers; whereas Palestinians, not Israelis, are suffering disproportionate civilian casualties due to Israeli bombing of Palestinian population centers.
Which, when you look at the list, it makes Israel look a lot more like Russia than Ukraine except for the fact that Israel was initially attacked.
In other words, your analogy relies solely on the premise that the whichever country is “right” can do whatever they want to the civilian population of whoever starts the war. This is not what all civilized, and a number of uncivilized, countries agreed to in the Geneva Conventions.
Very few people (if anyone) has condemned Israel for fighting back. Plenty have condemned or criticized Israel for the way they are fighting back. Pretending that distinction doesn’t exist reeks of bad faith.
Stephen Lathrop,
Raqaa, the Islamic State capital, was leveled during the US-lead campaign against it, along with several other cities in the area.
Could you explain how this occurred?
If your answer happens to involves ordinance dropped or fired by US and allied forces, could you explain why you never thought this a problem at the time?
I could give numerous other examples of modern urban warfare.
There were Jews who voted for the National Socialists in 1932 and 33. Studies showed a large number of them were people who felt they had something to lose by someone other than the National Socialists winning and that they could defend what they had by voting NS. "He doesn't really mean what he says." We all saw how that worked out for them.
And, I am sure, there was likely some media of that time reporting on how these Jews over here were voting NS.
I lump these kids joining the Intifada fans on campus with those other fools.
When a mass movement says they want to kill you and those like you, take them at their word.
they not only say it, they do it.
Scribe, on the basis of life-long fellow feeling toward Jews and Zionism, and in sympathy with what you say, I stayed reticent for months to voice a criticism which left me feeling conflicted. But I must now say, on the basis of what continues to happen in Gaza, that your sympathy, and mine, are misguided if they urge continuation. Down that path will be found more peril for Israel than security.
Stephen,
"Down that path will be found more peril for Israel than security"
How can you assert that with any certainty. The thousand of Hamas fighters now in Rafah will still get support from Iran and Hizbollah. They will recruit new comrades and the "mowing the lwn" in northGaza will provide only temporary relief.
In the meanwhile I urge you to read today's WaPo interview with Yousef Munayyer about the “complete incoherence” of US policy in this situation.
This is like a Catholic* proclaiming that all other Christians are bogus and cannot be said to speak for Christianity, and that some position on a current political entity or issue defines Catholicism.
*Or fundamentalist Baptist, or Mennonite, etc.,
Right. Like trans rights. I know trans Catholics, pro-trans Catholics, and anti-trans Catholics.
Which like… I’m not Catholic, and I’m pro-trans. Does that make me anti-Catholic, according to the anti-trans Catholics? Similarly, I’m not Jewish, so the fact that Judaism leads some people to Zionism is pretty irrelevant to me, just like some Catholics being anti-trans doesn't impact my take on trans rights. If being anti-Zionist makes you antisemitic, doesn’t being anti-Intifada make you anti-Palestinian or anti-Islamic, assuming that Palestinian Muslims associate the Intifada with their religious and/or ethnic identity?
No surprise that Randal sees murdering Jews as a legitimate aspect of religious and/or ethnic identity.
You and your mindless, opposite-day, knee-jerk critiques. Obviously, the point I'm making is that there is no need to respect the Intifada as an aspect of religion. Nor Zionism.
No surprise that Randal sees genocide and Zionism as morally equivalent.
That's exactly the point. The letter is asking the rest of us to make a moral judgement about competing religions. According to the letter's logic, we have to choose between being antisemitic or anti-Islamic. That's not a wise choice to put to the world.
No, that's according to YOUR logic. The letter mentions Islam, Intifada or Palestine exactly once:
You're projecting your antisemitic logic onto them and accusing them of the prejudices that you hold.
And don’t you think that’s a little odd? The one time they mention the actual issue at hand, it’s in the context of a deeply silly platitude?
Zionism and Intifada are incompatible. Obviously I prefer Zionism to Intifada. But the letter implies I’m anti-Islamic and/or anti-Palestinian if I think that. It’s a terrible way to set up the argument. If the reason for me not to be anti-Zionist is just that it's antisemitic, but my other option is to be anti-Islamic, then why does it matter which one I choose?
Much better to say yes, you can be anti-Intifada without being anti-Islamic and you can be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic. And you should be anti-Intifada for reasons X Y and Z.
The reason no one is doing that is because they’re running out of good arguments! So instead they’re falling back on antisemitism. It’s going to backfire. It is backfiring. Biden is stopping arms shipments! How much more respect does Israel have to lose before people stop saying “Antisemitism! Antisemitism!” and start addressing the substance?
No, it doesn’t. You as much as admit that when you acknowledge that the line I quoted is the only time they talk about Islam or Palestine. Again, your own logic is what implies that. Don’t attribute your own logic or your own distorted view of what is “the actual issue at hand” to this letter or its writers.
You have to be incredibly stupid not to realize the implications of the letter. If I say "it's racist to intentionally fart on Black people" you can safely infer that it's also racist to intentionally fart on American Indians.
I think you should focus less on what you think “the implications of the letter” are and more on what’s actually in it, and especially don’t read a lot into one sentence without putting as much weight onto, and applying as much consideration for, other parts that rebut what you assert are “the implications of the letter”.
Which parts rebut it?
The text before what I quoted earlier, for one:
The closing paragraph for another:
(Apologies for the excessive quoting in an earlier version of this comment, my phone copied more text than I intended.)
Or pay closer attention to what they say and don't say.
They say that Zionism is part of being Jewish. They don't say that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. Their examples of antisemitism are much more concrete and personal. Those examples were Jews being killed or assaulted or blocked from campus, not Israel being criticized.
Ok, none of that rebuts my point, except this:
They don’t say that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic.
True, they don't explicitly say that. I would love for them to have explicitly disavowed it, but they didn't do that either.
I feel like it's a necessary premise for the letter to make sense.
Then I have to conclude that your "point" is founded only upon your imagination.
You're ignoring what they DO say: that a bunch of your antisemitic allies try to obscure their antisemitism by saying "Zionists" when they mean "Jews". And that's a really obvious truth, given how the campus-occupying Hamas fans are behaving.
See, I think you're the one imagining things.
You’re ignoring what they DO say: that a bunch of your antisemitic allies try to obscure their antisemitism by saying “Zionists” when they mean “Jews”.
The letter doesn't say that. You just think that.
And that’s a really obvious truth, given how the campus-occupying Hamas fans are behaving.
Again, this is how you imagine they're behaving. Not how they actually are behaving.
Because speaking about the substance, the truth, will get communities attacked and murdered.
Consider openly discussing the following:
1. The indigenous people took their land back by force.
2. They took it back from a people who appropriated not just their land and holy sites, but who form part of a much larger group that made some of the latter an integral and all of the former an integral part of their imperialist normative order. The Dar al Islam. (For some also, the farthest mosque, etc.)
3. That normative order is, and has always been apartheid. It has NEVER offered legal or political equality to dhimmis or infidels. The ideas are alien to that order. Its founder was a warmongering illiterate pedophile slaver. He is considered by basically all members of that normative order to have been of superlative virtue, and so someone whose life SHOULD be emulated in basically every respect. If he did it, it COULDN’T be wrong.
4. The normative order founded by him is itself antisemitic—not that I care. This academic sources on this topic are solid. Now, under the current zeitgeist, you can openly castigate ideologies as hateful, racist, etc, but you’re not allowed to say RELIGIONS are so. Moreover, if you did so publicly, you’d get Theo Van Goghed or Salmon Rushdied. American Jews lived in a little bubble of non-violence from Islam; European ones didn’t. (See the occasional bombings in the 1960s-70s, the hijackings, etc.)
5. Asian, South American, and African immigrants and their children who scream about ‘decolonization’ have (or their familes have) all consciously moved to settler colonies on stolen indigenous lands. They moved there NOT in solidarity with the Indian people, or the descendants of the Black slaves who live there. Rather, they’re there PRECISELY to benefit from the system, and social norms, created by the Western European settler colonies: education, economy, healthcare, social services, women’s rights, material standards of living, etc. They aren’t decolonisers of anything; they’re parasites. If they actually believed even one scintilla of what they were saying, they would leave. Decolonization starts with THEM.
If the Jews spoke the truth, then Jewish schools, temples, neighbourhoods, etc, would be attacked. This is widely understood by Jewish communities globally, even if not by American ones…
American Jews, unfortunately, are complete morons and ignoramuses. They’re like a broken computer that can only repeat the phrase ‘antisemitism’. They live with their heads completely up their asses. (Like many Americans, this is inversely proportionate to their sanctimonious self-righteousness.)
I was thinking of writing an updated to Aesop’s fable, ‘The boy who cried wolf”. It is tentatively titled, ‘The American Jew-boy who cried antisemitism’.
I mean... a little over-the-top but whatever. It still doesn't answer the substantive question: what is Israel's actual path forward?
Goalpost shifting: you said 'the substance', now it's about what to do going forward.
Nor is the truth over the top. That's what the fight actually is.
Going forward, though, Israel should do what it ought to have done in 1948, 1956, and 1967.
Israel should do what it ought to have done in 1948, 1956, and 1967.
Yeah. That's the conclusion I've come to.
"Obviously I prefer Zionism to Intifada. But the letter implies I’m anti-Islamic and/or anti-Palestinian if I think that."
Conceptually, one can assert that. But operationally, in the present, that is the fact. Operationally supporting Palestinian statehood does give aid and comfort to HAMAS and its Judeocidal program.
In that sense, the campus protests are anti-semitic not at the conceptual level but at the practical operational level. It is exactly that direct link to the present ground truth that fills mmany Jews and Israelis on campuses with fear.
Yes, exactly. Just like if an asteroid were heading for Tel Aviv, it would fill many Jews and Israelis with fear, but the asteroid isn't antisemitic.
'That’s not a wise choice to put to the world'.
It isn't???
Demography IS destiny.
And demography doesn’t favor the Jews.
Screw the Jews. They have no future anyway.
It's the rest of West which is being ruined by the choice.
The Haredim are trying to make sure that is not tru.
Do not be upset that Michael P has you dead-to-rights.
No, just like cutting of a Males cock doesn't make him a Female, it makes him a Male with his cock cut off.
It doesn't make her a woman either. She already was one.
You certainly reason like a woman
Why thank you!
"Which like… I’m not Catholic, and I’m pro-trans. Does that make me anti-Catholic, according to the anti-trans Catholics? Similarly, I’m not Jewish, so the fact that Judaism leads some people to Zionism is pretty irrelevant to me, just like some Catholics being anti-trans doesn’t impact my take on trans rights. If being anti-Zionist makes you antisemitic, doesn’t being anti-Intifada make you anti-Palestinian or anti-Islamic, assuming that Palestinian Muslims associate the Intifada with their religious and/or ethnic identity?"
Wow, how much do you hate Islam to think intifada is an obligation for all to non-Islamic folks?
And being pro-tranny AND pro-Palestine is the epitome of idiocy. "I support this group that would HAPPILY slaughter every trans person on Earth if they possessed the opportunity to do so"
Guess who's doing all the killing of any trans folk in Gaza right now?
Why do you guys keep thinking I’m pro-Palestine? I'm one of the few people here arguing that it should be cleared of Palestinians. The only difference is that unlike Ed II or XY, I'd prefer it not be a genocide, just a cleansing.
The way you get there is not by mewling about antisemitism.
You seem to be saying that antisemitism is the fault of Jews, you think it's a good trend because it pressures Israel, and you use Hamas talking points to justify it.
Meant as a reply to Lathrop, but the edit button is disabled for me.
The author makes the mistake of assuming that Jews are only a religious group like Methodists. However, we are also a nation, albeit not an ethnic nation like Italians, but a covenental nation, like Americans. Just as an American can remain a citizen even if he does not believe in the Constitution, so too a Jew remains a Jew even if he does not believe in certain precepts. However, at a certain point, he is not a member of the Jewish religious community. Schism is possible religiously but not nationally. Thus, the Karaites ceased to be a member of the religious community but remained Jewish nationally.
One of those precepts is that God gave the Land of Israel to the Jewish people, whether they live in it physically or not. One can also cite various sources to show that it is the homeland of the Jewish nation.
The real problem is that anti-Zionists refuse to afford Zionists the same freedom of speech that they claim for themselves. Even worse, they institutionalize exclusion of Jews from campus activities and engage in violence in blatant violation of the law.
'You should not blithely assume that because Jewish people are part of the protest, it cannot be anti-semitic.'
There are all sorts of things one should not blithely assume. One is that the people who claim to support Jews loudest when and because Israel are killing people by the thousand cannot be anti-semitic.
there is no single Jewish religion. There is one Catholic church, and one set of doctrine.
Tell me you know nothing about Catholicism without telling me you know nothing about Catholicism.
Are you arguing that the Pope does not exist or is unable to make pronouncements ex cathedra? The distinction being drawn should have been fairly clear.
Tell me you heard the pope can invoke infallibility on matters of doctrine and faith and think you understand the catholic church without telling me etc.
Martin,
Both the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed recited in Catholic and Anglican Churches assert belief in "one, holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." (I quote from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer).
As for doctrine, there are and always have been some range of thought that is not part of the official Canon. That range is much narrower in some areas than in others.
NUKE GAZA
On a day with the wind blowing hard to the west or south, presumably?
Israel should build a "Doomsday Machine" like in Dr. Strangeglove.
They probably already have one, just waiting for Bibi's birthday to announce it (Bibi loves surprises)
Frank
It is not the protest that is anti-semitic; America has an honored tradition of peaceful, principled protest. It is what the protestors are doing that makes it anti-semitic. It is their conduct.
I don't have a problem with a bunch of adults screaming their lungs out for whatever cause they wish. Say whatever you want, no matter how objectionable...it is a free country. By the same token, you better be careful how you do your screaming. Some people react very unkindly to aggressive screaming in their face; remember, it is a free country. 🙂
Encampment on private property? You don't have a right to just pitch a tent on somebody's private property and scream vile shit to the world. I think that is called trespass. That is conduct that violates the law. It is also spectacularly bad manners, BTW.
Targeting Jewish students, and then physically preventing Jewish students from walking through their campus, or attending their classes in-person, and threatening their physical safety is inherently an anti-semitic act. Breach of contract too? Possibly. Federal civil rights violation? Sure looks that way to me. Columbia U gets Federal money, there are federal strings attached to it. Congress sure seems interested.
Are these protests we see across our country an American version of Kristallnacht?
Inasmuch as pro-war people are trying to leverage them to enact fascist responses to silence dissent, maybe?
'It is also spectacularly bad manners, BTW.'
A Trump voter has opinions about manners.
This XY guy is a disaffected right-winger who regularly hurls bigoted slurs . . . but claims to be gravely offended by what he uniformly claims to see as bigotry from people who object to a superstition-driven, belligerent, bigoted right-wing government killing thousands of children.
Says the moron who wants to normalize an imperialist apartheid cult in America. A buffoon who wants to import millions of superstition-driven, belligerent imperialists, ones who will try to normalize child marriage, polygamy, and certain forms of slavery. (Ones who will do so BECAUSE their prophet did so, which is why such practices are seen across much of their domains today.) A twit who just assumes his values will win out, even though demography is destiny and despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary.
Have you been promoting the subversion of America and systemic national security threats to it through mass illegal immigration lately?
Have you devised your exit strategy from the US yet, traitor?
I think guys like me will stick around to shove even more progress down the throats of doomed, antisocial, bigoted, right-wing culture war losers like you.
And you will continue to comply, clinger.
Thank you for your lifelong compliance with the preferences of your betters.
All the empirical evidence strongly suggests you're losing the global culture war and shall continue to do so. You aren't progress, either, and the whole world KNOWS it; yours is an evolutionarily inferior meme, after all, one that's FUNDAMENTALLY dependent on a massive supply of outsiders to even prop up your society and state.
And don't tell me you 'think'. You don't even know how to do so.
Comply??? THIS is your future, what your own neighbours will do to you, shit for brains: https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-man-kills-neighbor-because-204600966.html
Carry on, clinger, till your betters no longer tolerate your wasting oxygen.
Why would Prof. Blackman include an embrace of gay-bashing bigotry in an ostensible complaint about bigotry?
Is his moral compass so disordered he does not recognize superstitious gay-bashing as bigotry?
Is he a law professor who believes (or maybe just claims to believe) that superstition improves bigotry?
Does he believe or contend that superstition transforms bigotry into something other than bigotry?
Is he just flailing in a partisan manner, devoid of genuine concern about bigotry, and forgot that this post was supposedly an attempt to persuade the audience that bigotry is wrong?
I do not believe that Judaism is inseparable from Israel -- but if that is true, that's bad news for Judaism, because Israel currently sucks. Not because of Judaism, but because its people have elected a government populated by violent, immoral, bigoted, superstitious, right-wing belligerents, and because that government is a war-crimey disgrace.
I am genuinely curious what other, observant Jews might think about Josh’s performative Judaism.
It certainly isn’t a new, or unique, phenomenon for secular Jews or less-observant Jews to reconsider their relationship to Judaism over the course of their lives, possibly becoming more observant. That happens all the time. But that has been very explicitly not been what Josh has been doing. He seems to be adopting certain aspects of cultural Judaism – a mezuzah here, abstaining from posting on the Shabbos, perhaps he’s taken to donning a yarmulke – but he’s been clear here that these are superficial practices: the mezuzah is to signal support for Jewish students, the abstention on the Shabbos is strictly limited to just posting and is just for purposes of “disconnecting,” etc.
And he talks a lot about Jewish issues (like the present case). The weird veer into commenting about “skipping over” the inconvenient passage from Leviticus similarly doesn’t seem to be coming from a religious belief that it ought to be read in toto; rather, he seems to be making a glibly ignorant comment about religious syncretism. It doesn’t seem to be any of his business, right? But still he’s got to say something about it.
Perhaps observant Jews might view this as just one Jew’s path back to the faith, a more intimate relationship with their god. But it strikes me as transparently cynical, even offensive. I don’t think Josh’s heart is in the right place on this. I think this is – like most things with Josh – about his personal ambition, to be close to the center of where all this ADF, religious-freedom nonsense is happening.
The natural conclusion is to ascribe that awkward passage to right-wing bigotry. He certain suggests he would read that bigoted fairy tale passage with gusto if given any fraction of an opportunity. Is there any evidence that Josh Blackman is not a gay-bashing bigot?
If he has children it is likely they will grow to despise him for that notwithstanding his strenuous efforts to indoctrinate them in the ways of the clingerverse. Superstitious gay-haters will be even more marginalized by mainstream America 20 years from now than they are today . . . thank goodness!
‘Is there any evidence that Josh Blackman is not a gay-bashing bigot?’
You’re a trained lawyer and you want to prove a negative here?
Regardless, in twenty years your social, political, and economic values will be moribund. They will die off with Gen X, if not sooner. With massive demographic changes in the West, and a changed global world—where American liberal and progressive values will not only fail to hold sway but will be wholly dismissed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-68353437
You can also point to ZERO evidence that Africa, most of South America, the middle East, or East Asia will become more like you rather than less so. Here’s a bet: the majority of states in the middle east and Africa are sooner to enshrine a fundamental personal right to kill gays than it is to grant gay ‘equality’.
Give up the superstitious bullshit about the inevitability of your values. Face reality instead: your values are losing, you’re going to continue to lose, and you have no real future. Choose science and reason, not mindless dogmas. No god made you, no god made you equal, and your claims of equality are just conceptual holdovers from the Semitic cults. (And don’t you dare, as is the American wont, pretend that your values are coterminous with science or based upon the latter either.)
There is plenty of evidence Prof. Blackman is a conservative bigot. I was asking if there is any evidence that might point in the other direction. Seems a reasonable inquiry.
Right, so 'conservative' = 'gay-bashing', whilst 'bigot' is just a placeholder for you.
'Seems like a reasonable inquiry'. That's because you yourself don't understand, formally, what you asked.
Is there any evidence that you're not going to be a casualty of the impending American 'civil war' (an odd, inapt label for an event where one side possesses most of the weapons and knows how to use them)?
'superstition improves bigotry'?
Keep the illegals coming and the legal third worlders coming. Guess what will happen to your claims of gay equality? With the loss of American hegemony, are you ready for the re-criminalization of homosexuality across much of the Global South?
Also, what do you think will happen to the international legal system, including the so-called crimes of war, once America, its designer, not only can no longer control it but where the majority of its participants desire (and are indeed presently engaged in) an intifada FROM its rules? (As an aside, it is always amusing when an American accuses others of war crimes. Really, the lack of wherewithal ceased to be shocking to everyone years ago.)
What do you think will happen to the American federal legal system? You have a hard left that wants to tear it down, and a right that can see it has been weaponized against them.
Again I ask: what's your exit strategy from the United States, traitor?
Suppose a group had no problem with Indians, bur virulently objected to Indians who call themselves “Native Americans” or who claim to have had ancestors living in America before the indigenous white inhabitants. Suppose this group claims, for example, that the signing of treaties and acknowledgment of reservations proves that Indians are actually settler-colonialist emmissaries of the US government whose claim to lang comes solely from US government colonialism, and/or that the genetics and religion of current Indians is so different from those who lived in the area centuries ago that there is no real connection.
Regardless of the reasons, suppose this group welcomes all Indians except those who claim to be “native Americans.” Indians making such claims and those who support them get barred from activies and harassed as settler-colonialists and imperialists who committed all kinds of crimes against the indigenous white people.
But simce this discrimination and harassment is strictly on grounds of differences in political beliefs, not race or ethnicity, it’s OK.
Would this really be OK? Why or why not? Should a case of accepting all Indians except those claiming to be native to America be handled the same as or differently from the case of accepting all Jews except those claiming to be native to Judea? Why?
Huh?
What these students are doing is the same thing that Islamicists are doing, which is tying their religious identity and beliefs to a concrete, (geo)political goal. In this case, they are invoking the connection specifically to trigger the “woke” response of tolerance for diverse religious identity, as a way to insulate their geopolitical goals from criticism.
Contrast this with the way that American Christians push for Christian Nationalism, or Modi for Hindu Nationalism in India. American Christians certainly believe that our government should be shaped by putatively “Christian” values, but these are really just expressions of Christian morality, not the actual instantiation of Christian belief in secular form. Modi’s Hindu Nationalism seems to be similar – favoring Hindus and Hindu moral practices in the law, but the state is not an actual realization of any specific Hindu religious belief or set of beliefs.
Islamicists, for their part, see no legitimate role of a “state” that is not, in essence, a means of enforcing Islamic law and governing pious Muslims. For them, an Islamic state just is what their religion requires; they are not talking about a secular system that is informed by Islamic values or led by religious authorities (which probably best describes most Muslim states, even theocracies like Iran). They are talking about religious practice, in state form.
So it seems that Judaism-is-Zionism Jews are taking a similar position. According to them, their religious belief calls for the creation and support of modern Israel as a specifically Jewish state. In this, they have something in common with groups like ISIS.
I suppose they’re free to take that position, if they like. Whether we, as Americans, ought to endorse it, is another question.
See my comment above.
Suppose people have no problem with Indians who practice American Indian religions, just with Indians who claim to be native to America or who regard part of American soil as sacred. Since being an American Indian also involved both a religious practice and nativity land claims, do you really think the two can be so cleanly separated?
Can you really meaningfully accept all American Indian religions accept those that make claims to holy sites or regard certain lands in American territory as holy or sacred to them?
See my comment above.
No. I don't find your hypothetical that interesting or relevant, which is why I haven't responded to it anywhere else you've posed it.
Well, you can always ignore it and hope it goes away.
‘Judaism-is-Zionism’ is a bit of a stretch of a characterisation on your part. The idea is, instead, that Zionism is an integral feature of Judaism.
The distinction matters because it impacts whether there is scope for regime variation and how the laws are formed and applied. For example, whether it can be a secular, or secular-ish regime.
The slant of your comment furthermore suggests that the noted ground of commonality is per se illegitimate, something that is to be accepted, praised, or condemned. It also intimates that ‘Americans’ (‘We, as Americans’) must/should have a (single) view about the matter. Regardless, the intimation is that that’s illegitimate, which just begs the question.
More importantly, with the increasing loss of American power globally, you’re going to find that the rest of the world isn’t going to be like America at all. Even today, no one outside the West is multiculting and you can point to no evidence that anyone else (eventually) will. With the lost of your power comes the loss of influence over law, regime types, political discourses, etc.
So, for example, efforts to condemn other governments as being ‘ethnostates’ or religious ones for not being post-ethnic secular multcults—especially given that the existing ones are in demographic and political death spirals—aren’t simply going to fall flat (as they already do); they’re going to be rejected as the imperialistic bullshit by those who lack the wherewithal to understand, and honesty to discuss, WHY their own systems are in decline.
After all, the global intifada is already on, and it's a shaking off of YOU.
"Contrary to what many have tried to sell you – no, Judaism cannot be separated from Israel. Zionism is, simply put, the manifestation of that belief."
I find this to be a dangerous idea. First, they don't define Zionism clearly and concisely. (At least, not in what Blackman quotes.) They followed up their statement above with this:
Our religious texts are replete with references to Israel, Zion, and Jerusalem. The land of Israel is filled with archaeological remnants of a Jewish presence spanning centuries. Yet, despite generations of living in exile and diaspora across the globe, the Jewish People never ceased dreaming of returning to our homeland — Judea, the very place from which we derive our name, "Jews." Indeed just a couple of days ago, we all closed our Passover seders with the proclamation, "Next Year in Jerusalem!"
The historical occupation of Judea by a majority Jewish population ended when? From what I can find easily, the last Jewish revolt against the Romans in the 2nd century (which they eventually lost) resulted in the expulsion of most Jews from Jerusalem and the surrounding area. The land was sparsely populated, and Jewish populations persisted continuously to the present day. But it was majority Christian by the time of the rise of Islam. Then Muslims conquered the area. The land was contested between Muslims and Christians during the Crusades, and it was heavily majority Muslim from then and throughout the Ottoman period. Ottoman records might be biased as non-Muslims may not have been counted unless they had Ottoman citizenship.
The Zionist movement began in the late 1890s and Jews began to migrate there in large numbers. The first census under British control in 1922 showed the total (settled) population at 752,048. It was 78% Arab Muslims, 11% Jews, and 10% Arab Christian. Jews were still a minority (~33%) in Palestine at the end of WWII in 1945.
These facts force a conclusion that may be problematic for advocates of Zionism. If Zionism is defined in a way consistent with the above statement, then it says that there is a right of Jews to establish a Jewish state and homeland within what was called Palestine for most of the two millenia prior to 1948. This could only have happened through a displacement of the majority Arab population.
I don't see a way around a conclusion that Zionism was and continues to be a belief that Arabs should just go live elsewhere. Unfortunately, that seems to be a popular opinion within Israel. In 2016, Pew released a report of surveys taken within Israel and the occupied territories. One question asked for the support for a statement "Arabs should be transferred or expelled from Israel." Nearly half of all Jews in Israel agreed to some degree with that statement. (48% agree, 46% disagree) Breaking it down, it was secular Jews and politically left and center Jews that had the most disagreement with that statement.
Frankly, I found this to be disturbing. I expected higher support from Jewish Israelis for the rights of non-Jewish citizens of Israel to live there.
I don't think I should have to say, but I will for the sake of those that will jump on me if I don't. I give less than zero support to anyone that murder Jews or anyone else. I give less than zero support for antisemitism of any kind. Hamas deserves everything it has gotten from the IDF and then some. Those that support human rights for civilian Palestinians should recognize that Hamas's goal on Oct. 7 (besides just their eagerness to torture and murder Jews) was to provoke Israel into doing what it did - launch a war that would devastate Gaza and cause suffering for ordinary Palestinians in Gaza. Israel could not go after Hamas as hard as it would want to without doing that kind of damage. One would hope that thinking supporters of Palestinian human rights would understand this, that Hamas wanted Palestinians to suffer so that they could be martyrs that would gain sympathy and cost Israel world support. Then, they would demand the unconditional surrender of Hamas as much as, if not more than, they condemn Israel.
With that said, I cannot see Israel as the 'good guy' in this fight because of the history of Zionism. Rather, there are no good guys. There are truly evil people, there are people with their own tribal agendas, and there are mostly innocent, ordinary people trying to live peaceful lives. Some of that latter group are Jewish Israelis that have no grudge against ordinary Palestinian Arabs and end up being the victims of terrorists. Some are ordinary Palestinian Arabs that live in Gaza or the West Bank in generally poor conditions and don't have freedom of movement. They don't have the freedom to seek a good education for themselves or their children. They don't have their property rights respected or protected by Israeli authorities (West Bank and East Jerusalem). And they get bombs dropped on their homes (Gaza), killing their families, because they haven't been able to get rid of Hamas since they took over in 2006.
The simple truth is that no one with any power in this situation has any desire or incentive to protect the Palestinian people. Too many of their supposed leaders are corrupt (which is a big reason why Hamas got 44% in the 2005 legislative election to Fatah's 41%) even when they aren't terrorists. Too many with power in Israel apparently don't even want them to have an independent state and would rather see them sent to Egypt, Jordan, or elsewhere. And all of the outside powers have their own agendas and interests that take priority over what would be good and fair to everyone of every religion and ethnicity in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
This is nonsense.
The idea that Jews are native to the land of Israel is in no way inconsistent with the idea that returnees have to pay for land just like any other migrants. And Jews paid large sums of money to buy land that before they arrived was mostly worthless. And while Palestine wasn’t deserted in the 19th century, its Arab population was much smaller. Economic devlopment resulting from Jewish immigratikn brought a wave of Arab immigration. Most “Palestinians” are in fact descended from people who arrived at roughly the same time as the Jews, seeking not a homeland but economic opportunity.
Further, as to the 1967 territories, right-wing Israelis are hardly the only people who think neighboring countries need to understand that when they attack you, they have to accept the consequences of doing that, including the possibility you might counterattack and end up occupying some of their land at the cesse-fire. It’s not like most European countries didn’t end up with slices of territory formerly belonging to Germany, Italy, Hungary, etc. after WWII. This is not to say that Israel should ultimately keep all the territory it took then. But it was not won by conquest. It was won in a defensive war.
And Jews paid large sums of money to buy land that before they arrived was mostly worthless.
I hear this all the time, but I never see it stated with hard evidence. Besides, how much land was owned by Jewish immigrants vs. Arabs (immigrants or otherwise) is not as important as whether Arabs were able to keep the land they did own after 1948. This map, prepared for the UN from 1945 information, shows a lot of districts in what would become Israel having a tiny fraction of the land owned by Jews or Jewish organizations. And in none of them was Jewish ownership higher than Arab ownership (by land area).
You might also want to consider how well Palestinian property rights are being respected within the West Bank, as Israeli settlements have continued to grow. Some with Israeli government recognition, some not, but then tacitly accepted once established.
And while Palestine wasn’t deserted in the 19th century, its Arab population was much smaller. Economic devlopment resulting from Jewish immigratikn brought a wave of Arab immigration. Most “Palestinians” are in fact descended from people who arrived at roughly the same time as the Jews, seeking not a homeland but economic opportunity.
That is not consistent with British census figures and estimates from the period of their administration of the Mandate. The Muslim population grew from 589,177 in 1922 to 1,061,270 in 1945. The Christian population grew from 71,464 to 135,550, and the Jewish population grew from 83,790 to 553,600. The “average compounded population growth rate per annum” was just under 3% for non-Jews and over 8% for Jews. Again, this looks like something made up or at least exaggerated to justify the creation of Israel in 1948.
Further, as to the 1967 territories, right-wing Israelis are hardly the only people who think neighboring countries need to understand that when they attack you, they have to accept the consequences of doing that, including the possibility you might counterattack and end up occupying some of their land at the cesse-fire.
When one country takes another’s land during or as a result of war, then any people that continue to live there are now the responsibility of their new country. If that new country is one that claims to respect human rights, those people (presumably innocent civilians caught in the crossfire) should be treated equally to any other citizens of that country.
The West Bank and Gaza were not annexed by Israel when Israel gained control of them from Jordan and Egypt, respectively. The people there have therefore been nationless for 57 years. There is no government of any country that claims them as citizens. Israel wanted to have it both ways. They didn’t want to annex the territories and have to deal with demands to give them basic civil rights and eventually make them citizens with voting rights. But they also wanted to keep control of the territory as buffer zones in case Jordan or Egypt would try and attack them again. (Which Egypt would do in 1973.)
That is the start of how we got to where we are. Keeping them stateless has given them no effective means to control their own destinies. The right of a population to self-determination is supposed to be a bedrock human right for countries that are liberal democracies themselves.
This is not to say that Israel should ultimately keep all the territory it took then. But it was not won by conquest. It was won in a defensive war.
A defensive war fought 57 years ago. The ‘ultimate’ decision on how to deal with it should have been made before anyone born afterwards became adults, at least. Instead, there are grandparents born and continuing to live in those territories born after that defensive war that wasn’t a war of conquest.
France occupied German Alsace-Lorraine, ceded to Germany fair and square in the internationally recognized treaty that created Vichy France in 1940, and didn’t sign a peace treaty with Germany until 1990, 50 years later. Russia is occupying Sakhalin and several Japanese islands since 1945, and hasn’t signed a peace treaty with Japan yet. There are a number of other similar situations in the world.
War crimes?
France occupied German Alsace-Lorraine, ceded to Germany fair and square in the internationally recognized treaty that created Vichy France in 1940, and didn’t sign a peace treaty with Germany until 1990, 50 years later.
Except that Alsace and Lorraine seem to have been traded back and forth between Germany (once it was unified in 1871) and France multiple times. Alsace was part of France from Louis XIV until 1871, when it was taken as a result of the Franco-Prussian war. Then it was under French control again after WWI with the Treaty of Versailles (1919) formalizing its annexation the previous year. As for the Vichy regime, was that armistice actually internationally recognized? The Nazis didn't exactly give France much choice there, nor do I believe that they really held up their end of the bargain to any real degree. Most importantly, though, was there struggle and violence in the area for the 45 years after WWII before this treaty you talk about? Were the people there that had an affinity to Germany denied access to French courts or denied the right to vote for French government? And calling it a peace treaty is pretty funny, since it makes it seem like a state of war existed between France and Germany until then.
I'm not even going to bother with the issue of Sakhalin. This is all a pretty laughable attempt at comparison. Because you still don't get the point that the people of that region sandwiched between Germany and France were never left without a nation when one or the other took control.
I don't have anything to add to your comments or any point of disagreement with them. I'm just expressing gratitude for your providing a bit of informed intelligence in this morass of stupid ignorance we call the VC commentariat.
Good luck with Readery.
Hear hear.
First, I notice you use 1922 as your reference point, when the population increase on both sides was well underway, not the 19th century bfore it began.
Second, for 1948, the Arab residents mostly fled prior to the advancing Arab armies in expectation the Israelis would be made short work of. They weren’t fools. Unlike the people today claiming only Israelis cause massive civilian casualties and property damage when attacking through populated areas, they knew perfectly well what would likely have happened to them if the Arab attack had succeeded. They fled combat zones with the idea of returning shortly after the inevitable Arab victory. This was not unreasonable of them. But it did have consequences. The repeated claim that the Israelis drove them all out wholesale is simply not true.
For 1967, a complicating factor is that many people immigrating to the West Bank since the 19th Century, including a large influx around 1948, settled in open land witjout bothering to acquire title. In many cases Israel courts have been evicting people who have no documented claims to the land. I would tend to agree that this may be an overly harsh result; the Anglo-American concept of adverse possession recognizes squatters’ claims after a certain period of time. But the Israelis are applying Ottoman land law, which the British mandate inherited and passed on to Israel, and which tends to favor the claims of holders of record. Moreover, recognizing squatters’ rights could easily make things worse. There is a subgroup of Israelis on the right who would love to use adverse possession law in their favor if it were available as a legal doctrine.
There have been incidents of right-wing Israeli settlers pushing out Palestinians with legitimate land claims. But these are not all-the-time incidents, and Palestinians have been able to win in court. As I’ve pointed out, Israelis aren’t saints. But black governments and people in the American South under reconstruction weren’t saints either. Some of the incidents depicted in Thomas Dixon’s Klu Klux Klan trilogy may have actually happened. But Dixon’s and the Dunning School historians’ depiction of them as rapaciously evil, inevitably thieving and committing atrocities right and left unless kept under tight wraps, is the result of grossly overblowing isolated incidents into a non-existent pattern.
The same is true of Zionists. Zionists are not the rapaciously evil criminals their detractors depict them as. And their detractors regularly use methods not all that different from the way the Dunning School depicted African-Americans. African-Americans also weren’t saints, and also sometimes committed crimes. But they weren’t the consistently violent and theiving savages the Dunning School depicted them as either.
Finally, do you support the Confederates’ right to control their own destinies? The Catalans in Spain? The Kurds? Various subgroups in India? There are many, many peoples who ended up with the short end of the stick, reasons just and unjust alike.
More fundamentally, Hamas does not just want a Palestinian state. It wants everything, from the river to the sea. It has refused to recognize any right of Jewish self-determination. You and other of its supporters here have repeatedly belittled any such right so far as Jews are concerned.
Doesn’t that sort of estop you from claiming the existence of such a “universal” right? If the right of self-determination is really universal, it must apply to Jews too. And if it does, there is then a manageable boundary dispute rather than the current all-or-nothing battle for existence.
Finally, do you support the Confederates’ right to control their own destinies? The Catalans in Spain? The Kurds? Various subgroups in India? There are many, many peoples who ended up with the short end of the stick, reasons just and unjust alike.
Quite. Why is it only the Jews who get to have a mandated country?
do you support the Confederates’ right to control their own destinies? The Catalans in Spain? The Kurds? Various subgroups in India?
The Confederates? No. it's laughable.
The Catalans? Need more information.
The Kurds? Yes.
Indian subgroups? Not sure but likely varies from group to group.
Why should we treat all these groups, and others, as the same?
It is a mistake to argue that, because certain things can all be said to be long to a certain category they are alike in all respects.
Isn't it at least reasonable to say that the Kurds should have a right to autonomy, possibly a state, but Italian-Americans shouldn't?
And Jews paid large sums of money to buy land that before they arrived was mostly worthless.
I hear this all the time, but I never see it stated with hard evidence.
Per Benny Morris, at least, this issue is poorly understood on both sides. Yes, the Zionists bought a lot of land at generous prices. (He notes that there were not a few Arab landowners who sold at night and railed against the Zionists during the day.) But there was a problem.
The Arab landowners often did not work the land. They lived in Cairo or Damascus, or somewhere else, and collected rent from tenants who actually farmed it. To the tenant, the sale of "his" farm just meant he mailed the rent check to a different address. This was pretty conventional practice in the region.
But suddenly there appeared a new kind of landlord - a Zionist who wanted not merely to own the land, but to work it, and this meant the current farmer had to leave. Whatever your view of the rights and wrongs here it's easy to see that this would lead to conflict.
You might simply say that the two groups had different concepts of ownership, and were surprised at the difference in expectations.
'That is not consistent with British census figures and estimates from the period of their administration of the Mandate.'
It's consistent with the British censuses from the decades prior: they show there was indeed mass immigration there. So, that's a bit disingenuous of you.
Uh, how did the British conduct censuses before they had control over Palestine? Did you mean the Ottomans? I pointed out that the Ottoman census figures might not be reliable, as they may have excluded Jews living there that weren't considered citizens of the Ottoman Empire.
I am not disputing that there was immigration from other groups. I am only pointing out that the British data shows very large numbers of Jews immigrating, well in excess of any other group.
Yes, apologies, including a massive increase from the 1870s to 1880s. What’s under-discussed is (1) mass immigration in the 19th century for agricultural labour opportunities even prior to Britain’s assumption of control and (2) the resettling of Egyptian, Bosnian, and other populations from across the Ottoman empire there earlier in that 19th century. (Some people also claim, without credible evidence as far as I’m aware, that the Ottoman censuses were under-inclusive because people wanted to avoid military conscription.)
You might also wish to add to your list of things certain Zionists find problematic not only the resettlement of Arabs but also the demand for a public apology for: the land theft in the name of jihad, apartheid under the Pact of Omar (differential tax rates, legal testimony being worth 1/2 a Muslim’s, etc), the theft of key holy sites and their being made into mosques, the 7th step rule regarding the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the general cultural appropriation of religious narratives and characters, etc.
More importantly, you’re going to find America’s imperialistic program for the world since 1945 to be deemed increasingly problematic (and impossible to justify), including all of public and private international law as we know it, globally. So, for example, your discussion with others about how to analyse Alsace and Lorraine in those terms MIGHT become not only become irrelevant, but illegitimate as far as the rest of the globe is concerned. (If China wins this cold war, it certainly will be.) This, let alone, the attempted normalisation of Islam in the West…
"I expected higher support from Jewish Israelis for the rights of non-Jewish citizens of Israel to live there."
There are 1 million Arab citizens of the state of Israel. You also ignore the large number of Mizrachi Jews and the 800,000 Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria in the late 1940's.
The land "from the river to the sea" is not just Arab land as you seem to claim. It is the land of what ever group a succession of colonial powers assigned it. It does have deep historical ties inherent to the religion and the culture of Jewish peoples.
You also ignore the large number of Mizrachi Jews and the 800,000 Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria in the late 1940’s.
I didn't ignore that. But they had lived in those places for decades or longer, so what was the trigger that got those nations to want to rid themselves of Jews? Hmm, late 1940's, what was happening that involved Jews, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq....
‘The first census under British control in 1922 showed the total (settled) population at 752,048’.
The British had run censuses decades prior. The population growth by 1922 wasn’t just endogenous; there was large-scale migration to Palestine from the region.
You can also read about the resettlement of Egyptians, Bosnians and Circassians (by the Turks), and other populations into Palestine in the early to mid 19th century. The current leader of Hamas in Gaza (whose nom de guerre is Deif) is named ‘Al Masri’ for a reason, as is a large segment of the Gazan population.
‘If Zionism is defined in a way consistent with the above statement, then it says that there is a right of Jews to establish a Jewish state and homeland within what was called Palestine for most of the two millenia prior to 1948. This could only have happened through a displacement of the majority Arab population’.
What’s the problem with that? The borders were wholly made up by the British and French, and much of the population had relatively recently immigrated to the land. Furthermore, the process of Islamicization and Arabisation, centuries prior, was a clear case of imperialist apartheid, as irrefutably demonstrated through the Pact of Omar and the laws on the ground there: land theft, theft of holy sites, legal testimony being worth half of a Muslim’s, etc.
Further, if you apply a decolonisation lens to the middle east—which much of the world already does—, you’ll appreciate why Jordan is a pseudo-state whose minority-group king is wholly propped up for and by Anglo-American interests. It would be a perfect Palestine. More than that, you’d appreciate why much of the middle east—let alone the rest of the world, but ESPECIALLY Africa—is controlled by states and government that ought not to (continue to) exist. They were never chosen by the locals, are propped up by outsiders, and constitute forms of domination over the populations—quite a few of whom do NOT wish to live together.
With the loss of American power, you’re also going to see increased calls for the US’s decolonisation. This will ALMOST CERTAINLY happen across much of South America over the next couple of decades. It won’t simply mean inclusion of indigenous populations into systems of power and education; it will almost certainly entail depopulation and resettlement programs.
The bigger picture, then, is that you should re-assess some of your normative and political priors.
I'm at a loss for how the British conducted a census prior to their administration of Palestine, which started after WWI ended in 1918. The Ottomans, which had control over that area up until the British took over did conduct a census regularly.
Throughout the recent campus tumult, media outlets have always been careful to say the Jewish students are part of the "mostly peaceful" protests.
1. There are in fact Jewish students participating. Should the press ignore that, and only report on things you want to hear?
2. The use of the phrase "mostly peaceful," in scare quotes, is really pathetic, even for Josh Blackman. It is nothing but smug empty, tribalism, virtue signalling if you will, a pointless cheap shot.
Were the demonstrations not mostly peaceful? The two I saw part of seemed peaceful and, just to help you improve your logical thinking skills, finding one or two that were not entirely so means nothing.
Were there riots at South Texas?
Bernard,
"Jewish students participating" is a fact, but it is only part of the news to the extent that the editors and publishers want to make an irrelevant political point. There were also Catholics and Buddhist students. But is that mentioned? No.
I agree that the use of scare quotes is reprehensible. Otherwise I would have preferred "mostly peaceful" without the quotes. Why? because the protests as conducted did cause fear and harassment of Jews and Israelis on campus – regardless of whether that was their intent.
It's obviously not an irrelevant political point. To the letter-writing students, it was extremely relevant. To everyone interested in the points that the letter is making, it's relevant.
I don't think it's irrelevant. If I were putting out a newspaper story I would consider it interesting, at a minimum, the same way that finding numbers of Russians demonstrating against the invasion (a real invasion, BTW) of Ukraine would be interesting.
There is a difference between unintentionally causing fear and harassment. The former might call for a bit of education (I say that non-sarcastically) and the latter for serious punishment.
Jews identifying with Israel is just like homosexual sodomy. Wow. I am going to have to ponder that analogy.
one rather common approach is to simply disregard certain religious doctrines that are inconsistent with modern-day values.
Or maybe with one's political loyalties.
If Josh had read a few more verses he might have found:
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God.
Or flipped back a few pages:
You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt.
I'm no religious scholar. These passages are easy to find online. But Josh isn't interested. He just picks out the one that will please his RW buddies.
And I'm not doing the kind of cherry-picking Josh is doing. I don't claim that it is wrong to disregard certain provisions if one concludes that they are mistaken. (Aren't we required to think for ourselves - to argue, even with the Lord?)
But Josh wants to make a big deal of it. How strict is his observance, I wonder?
A 'stranger' isn't someone who wants to own all your land, holy sites, re-engage in cultural erasure and appropriation, and subordinate you through an imperialist apartheid normative order---as he'd done for nearly 1400 years prior.
A citizen, furthermore, isn't a stranger who merely resides with you.
I love that the Columbia Jewish letter throws the "tokenism" epithet often used by the far left back in their faces.
And Justice Thomas' problem isn't that he is a racist. His problem is that he is married to an insurrectionist traitor and refuses to recuse himself or perhaps even resign from the court because of her treason.