vicdan wrote:Diebert van Rhijn wrote:I'm sure he has his critics and I've read some of the refutations in the past which was certainly not an "exposure".
Showing his highly selective use of primary sources is not an 'exposire'?.. OK...
He's also shown to be way too pro-Israel by others. But I suspect you haven't actually
read any of those 'exposures' otherwise you'd know that the criticism is about laying
too much blame on the exodus at the feet of Israel instead of more cautiously spreading it between Israeli and Arab/Palestine leadership. As far as I know no scholar of note denies anymore the serious responsibility of Israel for the exodus of the Palestinian people.
You mean the one which contains the following statements, which you so conveniently ignored?
You are changing the discussion here again. The goal was to show "some mainstream zionist literature or campaign attempting to match some specific ancient boundary", as you requested. The article talks about lots of other aspects of Zionism but then goes again stressing the
The foundations of Zionism being linked to a "bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael" as well as a Zionist congress in '68 adopting as main aim "the ingathering of the Jewish People in its historic homeland, Eretz Israel".
Now I also explained how Ereth Israel is completely based on Biblical Israel, the exact dimensions of which , although subject to debate are at least including the ancient united Monarchy. Please note the Zionists called for an influx of immigrant in the whole of Biblical Israel, the religious-historical entity. Why you can't see why a religious idea
remains religious, even if uttered by secular nationalists, is beyond me. It questions the secularity of those people and
not means that suddenly we're not dealing with religious texts.
interestingly enough, the quotes you cited say nothing asbout Canaan.
Of course they don't call it Canaan, they call it Eretz Israel but as secular Jew you might be clueless that God promised Canaan to Abraham (Exd 6:4: "And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers." KJV").
So next time you hear Zionists speak about Eretz Israel, please keep in mind that this is
not about the desire for a vague undefined
homeland somewhere, it's a specific description that links back to Biblical dimensions, the description of borders in the Torah are endless . That they settled for something smaller in 1948 was a trade off, there weren't enough immigrants yet to claim more. Still the terminology remains
everywhere and it doesn't become less religious because some secular punks choose to change its meaning.
You don't even understand where I'm coming from and why I used 'Torah' in my sentence, in a conscious and generally (while mostly orthodox) accepted manner to encompass all Jewish religious teachings. It shows not only your lack of experience with the matter but added to that also an unwillingness to look at the context, the bigger picture, before interpreting the use of a word in some technical formulaic manner.
Yeah, sure. Whatever you say, dude.
No, no, I'm not letting you get away this time with denying you made an error. Just admit like a man you're wrong and be done with it.
Apart from WIkipedia which I already linked to, this is another random resource
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... n_Law.html
3. The term "Torah" can mean the entire corpus of Jewish law. This includes the Written and the Oral Law, which includes the Mishna, the Midrash, the Talmud and even later day legal commentaries. This definition of Torah is probably the most common among Orthodox Jews. Usually you can figure out which definition is being used by the context.
Now your remark again: "You don't even know the difference between Torah and Tanakh". As I already said you couldn't figure out what I was talking about because of your lack of in depth knowledge of the subject or a disregards of the larger context.
You were wrong vicdan and it would show some sincerity to just say so.
Having a quarter of my people brutally murdered is quite a bit of 'deepest of suffering'.
You're referring to the Holocaust? But that's five years within thousands of years of Diaspora. But my opinion in this is irrelevant to the discussion as I have no part in it. There are many Jews who prefer this 'horrible' diaspora above the current manifestation of a safe homeland.
Diaspora is no home of ours, and for you to tell me how I, a jew, should see it as the proper home of my people, is, frankly, moronic and anti-semitic. Enslavement, even a cushy one, is not freedom, and a gilded cage is still a cage. In this case, it was a cage with random spikes thrusting up through the floor ever once in a while. No thanks.
I wasn't saying that it
should be your home, only that it's part of an identity, it's all over your culture, as
reality, not only in religious form.
There are many countries in the world doing things qualitatively beyond anything israel ever dreamed of, but not a single one of them endures the hatred you and your ilk dole out at Israel.
Now don't start exaggerating. First of all it's no hatred I've shown so far, I just disagree with how the country was formed and believe that much of the conflict over it stems from this decision. Molotov cocktail waving Palestinians show hate but that's probably because they lost family over the conflict or stemming from other personal motives, fears or beliefs.
And I think way more hate is directed right now to the USA. And mostly because they too speak of one thing and the reality on the ground
opposes their claimed values. Why do you want it to make about ethnicity? The increasing hate toward the US demonstrates, after decades of global admiration and love, how it's linked to policies and politics
only. Israel might have been criticized from the beginning, the USA destroyed its good name with its increasingly insane foreign policy starting in the 70's, ending in today where it grew beyond any measure or scale for insanity and descending into
evil in terms of unintended consequences.
It's better to be loved than hated & feared, but it's better to be hated & feared than persecuted and abused. Take your xian 'turn the other cheek' claptrap, fold it up until it's all sharp corners, and stuff it where the sun don't shine.
It's a failing strategy. Turning the cheek comes from Judaism by the way, and is about shaming the opponent by such act of inner strength and defiance. It's not about letting others walk over you.
No, wait, i am not sure it's xian. I think what is really going on here is that the anti-semites could not see a greater affront than a strong jew, a jew who stands up for himself and refuses to be a passive victim. What you are suggesting is what we should stop standing up for ourselves, and return to our 'glory days' of passive victimhood -- you seem to find the idea of a jewish nation-state, defending itself and doing so successfully and with panache, an affront to your sensibilities. How dare jews stand up for themselves! Back to diaspora with you! Jews have to beg for protection, not take the matters into their own hands!
That's all based on the perception the current state of Israel is doing it successfully but the reality is increased rejection and having great dependence on the USA for protection, financially, military and to keep the Security Counsel off their back with endless vetoes, for decades!
I find is amusing, though, that you do what you probably wouldn't have done in any other context -- you blame the victim for the problem, you blame Israel for the 'anti-israelism'. Why don't you just cut to the chase, and blame the jews for anti-semitism?
I'd define antisemitism as an extreme form of self-hatred at the deepest level, as I see the Jew as a ultimate and 'tragic' expression of the human being itself. So yeah, it's possible a subset of Jews might be more antisemitic then they'd ever imagine to be. The genius Jew Weininger understood this all too well, I suspect.
Yeah, we should give up on the ability to defend ourselves, and return to galut, to be attacked and betrayed and discriminated against, for our own good. you are suggesting such insane shit our of pure unvarnished concern for the well-being of my people.
Just open up the country for the refugees that were expelled or ran off out of fear, hold elections like was done in South-Africa and move on. Now that would be a start. No need to become defenseless or such nonsense. But it's about giving up of a dream perhaps.