How does it feel to be a Jew who voted for Obama?
First off, let me say that given the historical hatred for Jews in the world, I am loath to write an article critical of members of my own faith. But this needs to be said, and I'm going to say it. To all Jews reading this, take the time and fully digest the ideas being discussed here.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Glenn Contrarian
Okay, Ruvy -
I'm a 'liberal coward'? Let me tell you one definition of courage - it's the determination to do what one must despite the cost to oneself.
Several times on BC I've owned up and publicly admitted when I was wrong. Why did I do so? Because my desire to speak and protect the truth is greater than my desire to 'win the argument'. I don't like to lose, but I refuse to win on false pretenses. Frankly, I've seen few times that anyone else on BC has shown that same determination.
Does that make me courageous? That's not for me to decide - but I DO take issue with those who would call me a coward when those same people are often afraid to hold themselves to the same standard.
NOW, let's look at your 'sledgehammer' quote:
"I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. There's an Arab nation. I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. That's a colonial invention. Since when were there Palestinians? I think there's only an Arab nation. Until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the southern part of Greater Syria."
WOW! ONE guy said something you agree with. ONE man...but does that make it a true statement? Not at all.
The Romans ruled Palestine. Then it eventually fell under Arab rule - and stayed that way until the First Crusade when the Catholics 'completed' their victory by slaughtering all Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. Not so long after that, Saladin retook Jerusalem, and Palestine stayed under Islamic rule until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in WWI.
In other words, Palestine had NOT belonged to the Jews for over two millenia, since well before Christ.
Yet what did the Zionists claim? Here's a paste from the Wiki: "At the Peace Conference in 1919, Emir Faisal, speaking on behalf of King Hussein, asked for Arab independence, or at minimum the right to pick the mandatory. In the end, he recommended an Arab state under a British mandate. The World Zionist Organization also asked for a British mandate, and asserted the 'historic title of the Jewish people to Palestine'"
Now let me get this straight - Palestine had NOT 'belonged' to the Jews for over TWO MILLENIA, yet they laid claim to a 'historic title'!
Sorry, Ruvy, but when it comes to the grand scope of history, the Jewish claim to Palestine is laughable. That would be akin to America giving up ALL land to native Americans and Hawaiians! That would be akin to ALL of South America coming under the rule of the indigenous tribes that roamed before the conquistadors ever set sail!
Is this blowing things all out of proportion? Not at all, because the same reference shows that EVEN IN 1945 the vast majority of the people in Palestine were Muslim, and the vast majority of the land owned in Palestine were Muslim!
Again, Ruvy, I'm sorry - but in the view of history, the Jewish claim to Palestine is specious at best, and criminal at worst.
Does this mean I want the Jews out of Israel? Not at all. You're already there, so it would behoove you to learn to live peaceably with your neighbors, because America won't always be able to militarily back you up when worst comes to worst - and it doesn't matter how much you claim otherwise, it is a FACT that the reason there is not greater aggression against Israel is because of the velvet glove of the West's diplomacy...which the Arabs know covers a mailed fist.
Make nice with your neighbors, Ruvy - because you can't kill them all...but without the West's protection, they CAN kill you all. Even now, all they would need to do to effectively empty Israel would be to set off a dozen or so 'dirty bombs' in Jerusalem, Haifa, and Tel Aviv...and much of those cities would need to be evacuated. What would you do, where would you go then?
Again, make nice with your neighbors...while you still can.
27 - Ruvy
Silas,
I have little trouble with what you say - except for one thing. Ship the UN to Geneva - or maybe the Island of Wight. We DO NOT need the bastards here. In Geneva the assholes can have their whores and Geneva weekends all they want, run traffic lights, kill pedestrians and claim diplomtic immunity, while the Swiss just have to suck it in. The same goes for the Isle of Wight - except that they'd have to do an awful lot of building to accomodate the UN fatheads - and their whores.
BTW, we Jews look more like Arabs than white men - and have for centuries - and we've been dealing with it just fine....
28 - zingzing
ruvy's righteousness, of course, comes with a gun attached to its face.
ruvy's version of "showing"that people are "liars" is to say they will be at the center of some conspiracy that's only in his mind, and which he doesn't bother to explain.
if someone says, "there needs to be an even-handed approach to israeli-palestinian problems in the middle east," ruvy hears, "fuck all you jews."
for someone who was once homeless in america, ruvy had better do some explaining about "overwheening." of course, if he would honestly think about what would happen to israel without our "overwheening," he might have to face the reality of his situation, rather than just spouting nonsense on the internet. he also will have to inspect his definition of the word "coward."
if "more often then not, scratch a "liberal" and what you find underneath is a nasty "do as I tell you, not as I do" fascist," why aren't we overrun with fascists? OHHHHH... ruvy's got his own definition of a fascist: "those who disagree with me." to use that definition, well, ruvy's a fascist. to use his definition, you see... that's why ruvy sees a fascist on every corner, a gestapo in every nation.
it's especially galling when he uses this kind of shit: "All the foreigners - the Americans the Brits the Russkies, the Germans, the French, and most especially the damned Vatican, have to either get the hell out of OUR land - or be driven out. They have NO business here at all."
but wait, isn't ruvy himself a foreigner? oh.... he's just talking about non-jews. i get it. it's a racial thing, nothing more. *fascist* what?
other than that, all ruvy's said is that there are no palestinians... fine--how about "people who live in the land of palestine, which doesn't really exist either anymore, because it was owned by the brits who changed the name and gave it to other people." i think you know, and we know, what is being said with "palestinians." whether or not it was a political (geographically) term in the past or not, it is now, so that's the way it is.
then there's obama's mobs... whatever... paranoid nonsense. hrm. taking the "o" out of "god"... your neighbors sound like nasty pricks... hrm. what are these "answers" that ruvy is looking for? where are the points (other than hysterical, racist jibber-jabber) that he's made?
i, and glenn, i assume, can't really find much in ruvy's shit to talk about... oh, WAIT... maybe glenn wasn't talking about ruvy! maybe ruvy isn't the center of the world! maybe he was referring to all the minutia of life (at least on this thread) that occurs outside of ruvy! would that occur to ruvy? ruvy might not think about that. he's too busy calling people (who aren't ruvy, of course) "cowards" to even notice that NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU, RUVY!
g-d! (and that doesn't mean god.)
29 - The Obnoxious American
"It's time we ship the United Nations to Jerusalem, cut off all foreign aid to ALL countries in the Middle East and start tending to our own affairs. But, in order for that to be accomplished, Israelis need to make it clear to Jewish Americans. You want us out. Your brothers and sisters in faith are equally part of the problem. Their influence in American politics is such that our politicians are too timid to pull back for fear of economic and political reprisals. I think Israelis are fully capable of administering their own affairs in that region and if the U.S. got the heck out, I think the Israelis would find that their standing with the Arab community will rise. You all share the same genetics. You all share the same land. You all share the same Patriarch. I think you all can figure out a way to make it work without our so-called guidance."
Aside from the point about the U.N. (I have a better spot for relocation, in the middle of the Atlantic) what kind of crazy sense does this make? Israel is an ally, you know, the whole diplomacy thing that Obama was preaching about before the election? If we went our seperate ways every time it was uncomfortable to have an ally, then the whole thing has lost all meaning.
"Jesus looked more like an Arab than a white man. Deal with it."
Lolll, is that statement supposed to be shocking? I really don't think anyone cares about skin color as much as beliefs and morals these days, of course, I can only speak for myself. It's interesting that you'd see these discussions through such a lens.
30 - Silas Kain
OA, the bottom line is that ask a Bible Thumper in the South about Christ. Most of the picture a white man. Talk to a Mormon missionary. Look at Mormon literature. Christ is a white man. And, in many Black Christian Churches, Christ is portrayed as an African which is probably closer than the image in the minds of unLiberty University students.
I'll take Ruvy and your point into consideration about the U.N. If Jerusalem is unacceptable, then Geneva it is. Insofar as Jerusalem is concerned, it belongs to the three great religions descended from Abraham = EQUALLY. Time for factions in all three camps, along with their sub-factions, cults and archaic beliefs to stop claiming Jerusalem as their own. It is not.
Again, the only reason the United States is so intimately linked to Israel is out of political greed and advantage. The Jewish American population is a formidable bunch with an even more formidable financial war chest. And, in that regard, the Jewish lobby is as detrimental to our government as any other lobbyist on K Street. If Israelis want autonomy and independence from the United States, then it is time for them to tell their com padres to back off. Remember, it was not me who called Israel the 51st state. It was an Israeli Prime Minister. And that statement troubles me more than anything Benjamin Netanyahu can spout.
31 - Ruvy
Glenn,
I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. There's an Arab nation. I don't think there's a Palestinian nation. That's a colonial invention. Since when were there Palestinians? I think there's only an Arab nation. Until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the southern part of Greater Syria."
WOW! ONE guy said something you agree with. ONE man...but does that make it a true statement? Not at all.
That ONE GUY is an Arab who is basically wanted here for sedition - that's why he fled. He is the enemy. And he is a " "leader", not just some fellah leading a donkey. Quite a number of Arabs from his side have also admitted to the falsity of "Filastin", and their use of the concept to destroy Israel and kill Jews. And that is the game of these "leaders" - to kill Jews.
As for the Arabs who live and work here, they don't give a shit about "Palestine". They give a shit about making a living. It's their "leaders" who are the problem. They only give a shit about getting rid of us - and if you are a useful idiot to them in that quest, they'll give you tea and cakes - if not, they'll shoot you just as surely as they'll shoot me.
So, I'll make nice to the gun I carry, Glenn. My gun can "make nice" to the Arab enemy, if it comes to that. We do not need your protection. We've beaten the SOB's before, and we will again, when the time comes to actually kill them off - and that time will come before it comes time to reconcile with them.
In the meantime, I don't care about your claims or your opinion of mine. In this country, it is what I do that counts, not what you think. And thank you for coming back and at least arguing the point with me. I take back my comment about you being a coward.
32 - Ruvy
Silas,
Insofar as Jerusalem is concerned, it belongs to the three great religions descended from Abraham = EQUALLY. Time for factions in all three camps, along with their sub-factions, cults and archaic beliefs to stop claiming Jerusalem as their own. It is not.
Jerusalem is not for you to parcel out, Silas. Jews conquered it from the Jebusites, we made it our capital, and our capital it remains. Alone.
When Christians ruled here in the stead of the Romans they left OUR Temple Mount a garbage pit. When the Arabs conquered the city, they at least cleaned the Temple Mount. The only time Christians have really laid claim to this city is when they sent Crusaders (who massacred Jews) to conquer it, and when Polish and Russian peasants cried in their cups HEP! HEP! - Hierusalyma Est Perdita - so they could go and kill Jews.
Generally, Christians have been a sorry spectacle with respect to Jerusalem. The only esxception to this are the English Calvinists who studied the Jewish Prophetic works and invented the word, "Zionism", understanding the theme of rhe Prophetic works they were reading. They even built a church in Jerusalem to encourage Jews to come home!
The Moslems have never cared about Jerusalem very much, and now they make a stink only to keep us from "Judaizing" our own city. What a joke!
No, Silas. Jerusalem is ours alone and non-Jews come here and remain here at our sufferance.
33 - The Obnoxious American
Silas,
Two things:
First. Islam didn't come about until 600 AD, and Jerusalem's significance in Islam is but a mere waypoint (compare it to the significance of Golden Samarra, or Mecca and Medina in Islam, no contest, not even close). By contrast, in Christianity, it is the birthplace of Jesus Christ, and few things are more significant to Jews than Jerusalem. When Jerusalem was taken from the Jews in 636 AD, it had been the Jewish capital for some 3000 years, and home to the sacred second temple, which is the holiest of sites in Judaism. Yet you are quick to suggest that somehow this land should be equally divided. How Solomon of you! While we are ALL sons of Abraham, not all of us have claim to Jerusalem, it should belong to the Jews.
But moreover, I've noticed a theme in your post. Specifially, we should all be shocked by the fact that Jesus probably had a good tan, the south is full of bible thumpers, and those greedy Jews and politicians get together and scheme to make those poor Palestinians so darn unhappy. The ole "Jewish Lobby" routine.
It seems based on observing your posts, that you really see people as the ethnic attributes and stereotypes you've been programed to believe in. They are all people. There are special interest groups of all kinds for sure but the old formidible Jews and their war chest rhetoric is getting a bit tired, especially given recent events, especially given events over the last 10 years. Make that the last 60.
34 - zingzing
"Jerusalem is not for you to parcel out, Silas[...] we made it our capital, and our capital it remains. Alone. "
so it's yours to claim? what century is this again? that city has been inhabited by peoples of various races and nationalities for thousands of years, and you think that you can claim it for yourself now? ha. good luck. jerusalem won't reverse 2,000 years of history just because you want to be all exclusionary.
"Jews conquered it from the Jebusites."
yeah, your torah tells you that. but history says that it didn't happen that way. the canaanite society fell apart, slowly moved to other lands, and the stragglers rebuilt. if there was some conquering jewish army, where did it come from, and where is the evidence? there is no evidence to be found, of course, because jewish society was built by peaceful people, not some great mythical army.
ruvy, it's a holy place in all three religions. it's also just a city. it's a place that is inhabitable by people, therefore, all people should be allowed to be there. what if new york city suddenly up and said, "alright, only native born, white, christian americans here. all you others, get your ass out?" say what you will about america, but you'd find it racist, inhuman and stupid. who's to say who can live somewhere? the lines drawn certainly aren't religious.
you must realize what a hardline jew you have become. there's nothing wrong with being patriotic or religious or defensive (to a degree), but you've become everything you think you are fighting against. you're your own biggest threat.
don't you see that you're as much a product of the hatred of jews as you can become? you want to curl up with a gun in some jews-only club. that's no way to live life.
35 - zingzing
oa: "in Christianity, it is the birthplace of Jesus Christ"
no it isn't. he died there, but he wasn't born there. that'd be bethlehem. if you believe the bible, of course.
"Yet you are quick to suggest that somehow this land should be equally divided."
who wants to divide it? open it. that's the point.
"While we are ALL sons of Abraham, not all of us have claim to Jerusalem, it should belong to the Jews."
why? because 1500 years ago, someone took it away from them? by those standards, luxembourg should get back all the land it has lost over the years. give luxembourg its land back! where are those cries?
i can see the idea that jerusalem IS a jewish city. it just is, whether it's forced or not. but the thing is, YOU SHOULDN'T FORCE IT. it doesn't need to be some sort of rule that jerusalem is jewish. time and circumstance should decide that, not some sort of law. that's barbaric and strange.
it's like the idea of saying "tokyo is a japanese city." why, yes, it is. and then there's your idea, which goes "tokyo is only open to japanese people." and that sucks. it's fucking dumb, really. i mean, it's a country's right to allow or disallow people to enter, but that's done on a person-by-person basis, not because of their religion, or their skin, or whatever the fuck else you decide.
36 - Ruvy
zing,
it's like the idea of saying "tokyo is a japanese city." why, yes, it is. and then there's your idea, which goes "tokyo is only open to japanese people." and that sucks.
Stop putting words in my mouth. You do not knows history like I do, and yoi do not know the situation in Jerusalem on the ground like I do. When I say the foreigners have to get out, I mean all those foreign governments who want to control Jerusalem from the outside - like the Russians, who want the Russian Compound to be under their sovereignty, the Vatican which wants a whole slew of the city under their sovereignty, the French, who think that because French nuns came here and live in a few little buildings, that they have the right to tell the city government what to do, and finally the damned American government, which has corrupted our politicians and our institutions and think that they have the right to order everybody around in this city - who fucks who, who gets pregnant, where neighborhoods can be built, etc. etc. etc.
The lot of you don't have the right to shit here! The Shield of Solomon flies over this country, this is Jewish sovereign territory, ALL OF IT, and foreigners come here on our sufferance, and no more. This doesn not mean that those who are not Jews are forbidden to live here (though this may change in the future), it means that foreigners can live here - under OUR laws - by OUR permission and upon OUR sufferance.
To put this in terms that are clear to you, New York is an American city; the government of Israel does not get extraterritroial rights over Midwood and Boro Park, the government of Italy does not get sovereign rights over Bensonhurst, and Angela Merkel does not get to run the German tricolor over Yorville, and the Norwegians don't get to run up their flag over the little tiny bit of Bensonhursat near the Verazzano Narrows Bridge where all those cute girls who are not blondes out of bottle live. That is the shit being attempted here.
37 - zingzing
"Stop putting words in my mouth."
the words were put in oa's mouth and the use of the word "like" denotes that it was not literal.
"You do not knows history like I do"
well, at least my history doesn't come out of the bible.
"When I say the foreigners have to get out, I mean all those foreign governments who want to control Jerusalem from the outside"
yeah, alright, fair enough.
"who fucks who, who gets pregnant"
i'd like to see you explain this one. what are you talking about?
"The lot of you don't have the right to shit here!"
well, by all rights, you don't have the right to decide those things either. better get elected.
"The Shield of Solomon flies over this country, this is Jewish sovereign territory, ALL OF IT, and foreigners come here on our sufferance, and no more."
yeah, well, i think your country's reasoning is that the land was "given" to your country, and the fact is that you're too weak to defend it. it's a lose-lose situation. we're stuck with you, and you're stuck with us. better get used to it. you survive "by OUR permission and upon OUR sufferance," like it or not.
"That [extraterritorial rights] is the shit being attempted here."
really. got a link to it? if that's true, then that's malarkey. to be honest, i don't know why anyone would even WANT to that. sounds like a terrible investment.
38 - Christopher Rose
The argument from our man in the east is nonsense anyway.
The only "justification" he has for being there at all is that some imaginary creature told them to go live there.
The Jewish people originally come from what is now Iraq, as he full well knows. Maybe they should indeed all go home.
It also brings a sardonic smile to my face to realise that Ruvy has more in common with other faithist extremists, those currently running Iran who believe, as he does, that the United Kingdom is the source of all evil.
39 - Ruvy
"who fucks who, who gets pregnant"
Of all your yapping, this is worth answering. It helps to follow the news. The bossy American bastards in the state department want to extend their "settlement freeze" to all of Jerusalem beyond what is known as the kav tefer, the seam line, the former border of the city in 1966. That includes neighborhoods like Armon haNetziv in the south and Pigat Ze'ev in the north as well as Ma'ale Adumim and Har Gilo, mentioned in the Arutz Sheva story referenced. Banning natural growth means no building to accomodate children, the natural result of fucking. I just cut through all the pretty talk and got to the bottom line.
It remains to be seen whether the gutless slug in the prime minister's chair, Netanyahu will comply. Apparently his oh-so-competent "Security" Minister, Ehud Barak, wants to offer a three month freeze. to the Americans. I'll let you look up the sources for that if you want, zing.
Gutless pigs, the lot of them. But the more they surrender to the Blessed of Hussein, the more they make themselves the target of violent overthrow - getting kicked out like Ceauscescu and his Securitate in Romania 20 years ago.
That is why I supported Obama. I want the sick, American-corrupted system ruining this nation thrown out for bowing to that evil prince of the setting sun.
And make no mistake. America is the setting sun, on its way down.
40 - Ruvy
OA,
You picked an appropriate title for your article - Jewish Guilt.
There is much reason to feel guilt. But Obama is not part of that reason. Obama is a mere target marker - those Jews who bow to him here will be targets; those Jews who bow to him in America will find themselves targets of a different kind. An evil end will find all of them. Justice will be served.
But I wish to return to a different issue. Jews are targets of hatred today because of the traditional blaming of Jews - all of us - for killing Jesus, a supposed god to Christians. But Jews are also held to account for the existence of Israel - that we dare establish some kind of safe haven for our people. We are held to account because big-ego, big-checkbook Jews in America try to do what they can (often mistakenly and misguidedly) to protect that safe haven. We are held to account for "crimes" against the "Palestinian" people, a convenient fiction created by the el-Husseini family (Amin el-Husseini, Yassir Arafat, etc.) to market the legitimacy of murdering Jews. But the el-Husseinis are not local to Israel, they are Egyptians under the spell of the Moslem Brotherhood of Egypt, a murderous sect under the spell of the equally murderous Wahhabi of Nejd.
The Jewish Guilt I'm referring to is the rejection by Jews of G-d's gift to them, the Land of Israel. The Children of Israel rejected this gift originally and had to wander 38 years until they all died off in the desert. Their children inherited the gift and were wise enough (for a while anyway) to follow G-d. "Religious" and secular Jews in Europe rejected this gift in the 1930's and died in Hitler's ovens. Now American Jews - like you - are rejecting this gift as well. This is not wise.
No matter how much your wrap yourself in the Stars and Stripes eventually someone will go after you for being a Jew - even if you convert to another faith, trying to hide. They will say, "there's a Yid, there's a Yid's kid - let's get him!"
Israel, as a nation, may or may not need what assets you bring here, but you need the asset that Israel will give you - relative safety from attack because of who you are. America has a $10 trillion GDP, say for argument's sake - and at least four or five times that amount of currency in circulation in one form or another. Optimistically speaking, your economy is worth a quarter on the dollar. That means that when inflation balances out the unrealistic numbers, a bacon-egg-cheese croissant at Burger King costing $3.99 plus tax, say, will cost you $15.99 - plus tax. That's an expensive breakfast.
And you, the Yid, will be blamed. There are too many high profile Jews in the States not to escape blame fot the shitty condition of the economy - and when the economy goes bad, Jews get the blame. That's how the Protestant elite running your country has the system rigged. American blacks have managed to move a notch up. But Jews - the immigrant group that has made the most of the opportunities America has offered immigrants - will get screwed.
It doesn't matter what ideology the goon holding the club follows. It doesn't matter if he is a skin-head, a neo-nazi, an Obama brownshirt or someone else. When his club hits your bone, your bone will shatter - and it will hurt like hell. And that's the point. The same will go for all of your family. The goons attacking you won't give a shit whether your wife wears a cross or a Jewish star. They will have a Yid and a Yid's kid, and they will make you suffer for bringing America down - even though you didn't.
It'll be Europe all over again.
The vacation is over for Jews in America, OA. It's time to hit the road - home - while you still can.
41 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
You're of course right, shows how much I know about Christianity. However, my point still stands, Jerusalem is way more important to Christians than to Muslims. I have yet to hear a single person explain why it's so important to Islam (I already know the reason).
In any case, the time argument, that it happened 1500 years ago, is a silly one. By the same logic, if the Jews had taken back Jerusalem and Israel proper 1400 years ago instead of 60, then you'd be ok with it? How recent does the conquest have to be to be settled in your view? After all, Georgia was taken by the U.S.S.R. last year and the left wing in general, and Obama in particular, didn't seem to have a problem with that. So is it just when Jews do it in recent times?
As I said, fast foward a few hundred years, and the fact that the Jews took back Israel just seems like another footnote in history. In any case, it was Jewish land, and it is now Jewish land, not for you to arbit.
42 - Joanne Huspek
I knew I shouldn't have tarried over the comments. Usually I read the article and skip over to the end, not wanting to get in the way of the flying arrows. Now I forgot what I was going to say.
Oh, yes. The "Jewish" guilt...
OA, first I want to say, nicely done.
Second, I think "buyer's remorse" will spread from the Jews to others. I understand our president's choice to try to win over our enemies by being a friend, but there's something about it that makes me uneasy.
Third, where the hell is our Secretary of State? Besides taking over energy, health care, the banks, the insurance companies and the auto industry, the President is taking over her job as well? Many of the felled protesters in Iran were women, and you'd think she'd be on it like white on rice, just for gender side of it. Or is Obama practicing keeping his friends close and his enemies closer?
43 - roger nowosielski
"I understand our president's choice to try to win over our enemies by being a friend, but there's something about it that makes me uneasy."
Why, Joanne? It works in personal relations too. Besides, we're coming to a point in human history where cooperation rather than conflict will see us through. Enemies, too, can be won over, especially since we created a good many of them by our own actions.
Relations between nations, no less than relations between persons, always subject to change. Nothing is written in stone.
Surely, you've got to believe that.
44 - Silas Kain
Perhaps Jewish land is not for me to arbit. So, how about this? Christianity and Islam are the bastard children of Judaism quite like what Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are bastardizations of Christianity. So, based upon this, if all sides agree that Judaism is the original faith then it would stand to reason that Jerusalem would rightfully go to the Jewish community.
For too many years my tax dollars have been invested in a Middle East 'cause' that is none of our business. I hope I say this right for Ruvy's sake. The United States is a major part of the problem that is the Middle East. We are not the white knights on a crusade. There's money and influence at play in the United States. The pro-Israel lobby is far too big, far too influential and even religiously driven. If we back off perhaps all factions can forge some kind of truce. I admit that I am ignorant when it comes to all the nuances involved but I'm smart enough to understand that a new generation of Israelis, Muslims and even Christians don't need to perpetuate this so called righteous war. They've inherited generations of archaic thinking, repressive authority and unfathomable hate. If this generation can't achieve a lasting peace, we at least owe it to those who will carry the torch to have a better foundation upon which to build. Isn't that the reason we're all here? I mean, for God's sake, are we going to allow this hate to continue? We are what we educate.
45 - The Obnoxious American
"It works in personal relations too. Besides, we're coming to a point in human history where cooperation rather than conflict will see us through. Enemies, too, can be won over"
Humans are humans are humans. Doesn't matter whether it's 2009 or 1009. What you're saying sounds good, which is why I think Obama's campaign was so successful. But consider the reality, even our allies that we cooperate with aren't that cooperative if it does not serve them. Foreign policy isn't a marriage, except perhaps one of convenience. The fact is that just as it always was that both cooperation when possible, and conflict when necessary, is required to see us through. The big problem right now is that the American President seems to eschew conflict at all costs. We've seen that approach before in Neville Chamberlain and a long line of appeasers. Even in 2009, People generally won't cooperate with someone whom they can simply run roughshod over.
"especially since we created a good many of them by our own actions. "
MAKE IT STOP, so sick of the blame America first crowd. As if we hold the patent on enemy creating. Puleeeeeeeze.
46 - The Obnoxious American
Silas,
I agree with what you're saying. Now just ask yourself, looking at the three actors in the region, which one needs educating? Jews are among the most educated in the world, and as someone who has first person experience in orthodox Judaism, I can tell you that this hatred of other religions isn't something that is routinely taught. I have a feeling Christianity as well does not promote an ideology of hatred. Yet hate is taught in Palestinian schools as well as many other muslim-led middle east countries. Anti-semitism and in fact anti-anything-other-than-islam is codified in Sharia (Islamic law). Should both Jews, Christians and Muslims get educated when clearly only one of the three needs it?
47 - roger nowosielski
Correct, hatred is being taught. And the main reason is - it serves as a buffer against tyrannic governments which exploit its own peoples (Saudi Arabia is a good example). So breeding hatred and ignorance is a well-devised strategy for diverting discontent away from the real enemy. And it works. The Arab states are still being run on the model of petty sheik dictators. The entire political map in the Middle East has got to change before peace can come into the region.
48 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
Could not have said it better myself.
49 - Ruvy
This is for all of you; for Silas in particular.
There is no "two-state" solution that is a viable one, except one that posits Jordan as the Arab state. But there are possibilities for peace, for real and lasting peace. However talking about them here is a foolish thing to do. They must be pursued quietly so that a real transformation can take place without scum from the States or Europe interfering and fucking it up.
Let's leave it at this; the solution requires thinking outside the box, something that is a hard sell normally, and something that conventional minds resist strongly.
As for Jewish guilt, OA, I repeat my earlier points in comment #40. The more you try to ignore them, the more they will haunt you. The problem of the Jews in America is a simple one. They were grnted a vacation from persecution in America to allow them to prosper and thrive - so that they could return home to Israel strong and refreshed from 19 centuries of grinding persecution. But if they (you) refuse to understand this, you will find yourselves in a terrible situation in the States. What kind of disaster will overtake you there I cannot predict. But disaster will overtake you there.
50 - The Obnoxious American
Ruvy,
Can't ignore that possibility. But in this case I hope reality is closer to Roger's world view than yours, for obvious reasons.
51 - roger nowosielski
There are enough targets available today, Ruvy, to direct one's wrath against - the government, the corporations, you name it - rather than the Jews. Besides, it don't really imagine the situation becoming so dire as to result in pogroms. Except for parts of the Middle East, that's nineteenth century thinking. You'd really be hard put to identify such elements in the American culture - even among the most fundamental and ignorant of circles.
And the idea you seem to be espousing - tracing Jew-hatred to the killing of Christ - is also on its last legs. Again, nineteenth century thinking and before.
52 - Silas Kain
Well now. There seems to be commonality here! Education. Education. Education. For years I have maintained that any major advance for humankind must begin with education. No doubt about it - Israeli children get a darned good education - better than in the United States. And there's no doubt in my mind that Muslim authorities are better served by an ignorant public. If Israelis (Jews) AND Christians could agree on this basic premise imagine what could be accomplished. Teaching children about history; encouraging civic pride and duty; fostering personal accountability -- these are the fundamentals of education that MUST be taught to all children whether they are in a village in Somalia or a high rise in Tel Aviv. We owe our children a legacy of enlightenment, not a sentence of hate.
53 - Ruvy
Teaching children about history; encouraging civic pride and duty; fostering personal accountability -- these are the fundamentals of education that MUST be taught to all children whether they are in a village in Somalia or a high rise in Tel Aviv. We owe our children a legacy of enlightenment, not a sentence of hate.
You are on to something there, Silas. Thank you for reminding me of a project I have in my notebook to seek funding for.
Later!
54 - Glenn Contrarian
Ruvy
You said, "Stop putting words in my mouth. You do not knows history like I do, and yoi do not know the situation in Jerusalem on the ground like I do."
You said that to someone else, and you took great offense at my statements that the lands of Palestine - in the grand scope of history - are NOT 'traditionally Jewish'.
Nor did you respond to the FACT I posted that in 1945, the VAST majority of the people in Palestine were Arab, and the vast majority of the land was owned by Palestinians.
Please note that when I use the word 'Palestine', that includes all of what is today 'Israel'...and I'm sure that infuriates you all the more.
You also did not answer what Israel would do if terrorists set off enough 'dirty bombs' (which are not that hard for a nation to make) to force Israel to abandon the cities, what would you do then?
One last thing - you mentioned how you're walking around with a gun. Looking at that, and looking at your posts here...dude, please take no offense at this, but you need help. Those who go looking for trouble...usually find it.
55 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
Walking around with a gun isn't looking for trouble, it's called being prepared. I know this is a hard concept to understand but should you ever become victimized you'll hopefully understand.
I also think given the above comments, you're clearly not interested in thinking about anything that's been discussed in this thread (which is off topic of the article btw) and instead wholly focused on stirring Ruvy's pot.
56 - Ruvy
Glenn,
There is taking offense, and there is taking offense, if you get my meaning.
First of all, let's deal with the gun stuff. A person with some authority to use a gun to preserve public order, a police volunteer, for example, can fire a gun only to prevent loss of life. A person who is not deemed to have that authority generally will be jailed for discharging a bullet into the air, even if his life is under threat by an Arab mob. That is how the law works here.
This isn't the States, where you draw can your gun "just cuz".
So, I can talk one way here and "take offense" and rip into people for ignorant assumptions and the like. But I daren't pull that pistol or rifle without imminent threat to my life - or if I'm on duty, imminent threat to the pulic.
As to the FACT I posted that in 1945, the VAST majority of the people in Palestine were Arab, and the vast majority of the land was owned by Palestinians... you have some problems, first with the vocabulary. Jews were known as Palestinians during the days of the Mandate. The majority of the land was under the ownership of the Arabs, not the Palestinians.
The second issue is this. On Kristrallnacht in 1938, the British released the "White Paper" shutting the doors of the Mandate to Jewish immigration. The result was that at least one million Jews who would have fled here didn't and went up in smoke in gas chambers or starved to death, or got shot. That one million Jews would have created a Jewish majority in Mandate Palestine, something the British deliberately prevented. So, naturally, there was an Arab majority here in 1945.
The British had followed a policy of deliberately barring land sales to Jews, so Jewish ownership of the land in the country was also deliberately retarded by the British. Put simply, the British betrayed their Mandate. That they were driven out by Jewish terrorists here was something they richly deserved for being the deceitful bastards they were. They deserved worse than they got from our terrorists.
Your use of the term "Palestine" the Roman name of insult to our people, does not offend me at all coming from you, considering your views.
There are other points of yours that I could dispute, but will not. There may be money to be made on an article dealing with those issues, and I'll not queer the deal prematurely. Obviously that article will not appear here, but if I do get paid for it, I will be sure to link to it when I do raise the subject here.
You mention dirty bombs forcing Israelis to abandon cities, probably on the coast (which is where the Jews are most thickly concentrated - though you did not specify that; I'm not putting wrds into your mouth, however).
If this happens then I fear for the lives of the Arabs who live in Samaria, the Galil, Gaza and the Negev. They will be slaughtered in a Jewish pogrom, and it will be tragic indeed.
And now dinner calls. I'll return later.
57 - Glenn Contrarian
Ruvy -
Firstly, I never know that 'Palestine' was an insult to Judaism. Unfortunately, at the moment I do not know what name would be more appropriate since we are speaking of an area that is larger than the Israel that declared independence in 1947. Furthermore, I have to use what is given in the historical references that are accepted even by you.
That said, if you can suggest a more appropriate or less offensive name, I'd like to hear it.
Now, back to the discussion -
"Jews were known as Palestinians during the days of the Mandate. The majority of the land was under the ownership of the Arabs, not the Palestinians."
FYI, the Arabs within the British Mandate of Palestine were considered as a subset of the Palestinians, as were the Jews.
The reference I provided did NOT distinguish between Arabs and Palestinians, but (if you'd check the reference) clearly considers all those within the borders of the British Mandate of Palestine.
To wit:
# 1922, First British census of Palestine shows population of 757,182, with 78% Muslim, 11% Jewish and 9.6% Christian.
# 1931, Second British census of Palestine shows total population of 1,035,154 with 73.4% Muslim, 16.9% Jewish and 8.6% Christian.
"The White Paper of 1939, which placed immigration restrictions on Jews, stated that the Jewish population "has risen to some 450,000" and was "approaching a third of the entire population of the country". In 1945, a demographic study showed that the population had grown to 1,764,520, comprising 1,061,270 Muslims, 553,600 Jews, 135,550 Christians and 14,100 people of other groups."
NOW, Ruvy - you blamed the British for restricting further Jewish immigration, for such would have resulted in a Jewish majority.
Ever heard of Tibet? Of course you have. One of the most tragic things is that the Chinese are encouraging ethnic Han Chinese to emigrate to Tibet (and one must have official state permission to go from one province to another), and they are doing so to overwhelm the native Tibetan population. They have already done so with the Uighurs in Xinjiang province.
Tell me, Ruvy - in the eyes of the Muslim Palestinians (not YOUR eyes, but THEIRS) - would allowing a sufficient number of Jews to immigrate to Palestine that they would be in the majority...would this, in their eyes, really have been any different from what the Tibetans are experiencing today?
58 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
It's not that I want to ignore the issues you brought up - it's just that Ruvy challenged, and I answered.
It's nothing against you, but I've seen this happen many, many times - a discussion gets hijacked and goes somewhere that the original author didn't intend.
NOW - one of the main themes in my responses to Ruvy is that while it is important that Israel stays strong, Israel needs to learn to live peaceably with her neighbors...for if you don't learn peace, it will come back to haunt you.
59 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn, it's fine, no worries. That said:
"Israel needs to learn to live peaceably with her neighbors...for if you don't learn peace, it will come back to haunt you."
Israel does? That's kind of one sided, dontchathink?
60 - The Obnoxious American
""The White Paper of 1939, which placed immigration restrictions on Jews, stated that the Jewish population "has risen to some 450,000" and was "approaching a third of the entire population of the country". In 1945, a demographic study showed that the population had grown to 1,764,520, comprising 1,061,270 Muslims, 553,600 Jews, 135,550 Christians and 14,100 people of other groups."
Glenn,
What you're missing here is, this land was originally Jewish land, taken from the Jews by the Muslims. Yes, this happened centuries earlier, but so what, that doesn't change the reality that it was Jewish land.
By this logic, had the U.S. sent in 100 million troops instead of 100 thousand, would that have given us some magic rights to own Iraq because Americans happened to be in the majority? Explain to me the difference between the two scenarios aside from your flippant decision that only Muslims have the right to kick Jews out of their land but not vice versa.
61 - Ruvy
I never know that 'Palestine' was an insult to Judaism.... if you can suggest a more appropriate or less offensive name, I'd like to hear it.
As for terms, Glenn, I tend to use the term 'Land of Israel' - which covers all of the State of Israel, the Heights of Golan, Jordan, and the territory south of the Litani River in Lebanon. I use the term 'Mandate Palestine' when it appears appropriate, as in dealing with the legal entity of that name. Arabs living inwhat was always known as South Syria have attempted to appropriate the name "Palestine" and "Palestinian" for themselves and you follow their example - unfortuntately giving them a propaganda victory (remember the words of Sun Tzu about winning without a fight). I refuse to do so.
Now, to the meat of your assertions. In Tibet, there will be no in-migration of Tibetans into their homeland. Han Chinese inmigration is a one way deal, enforced by Chinese gunpower and the difficulty of crossing mountains.
This was not the case with the Mandate. The British exercised careful control over Jewish in-migratrion, and allowed Arabs to cross from Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Lebanon virtually unchecked. Jews brought labor for Arabs. The Arabs liked the money earned from the labor - but they generally didn't like the Jews paying the money. If I had to look at it from their eyes, they probably saw us as a necessary evil - the unfortunate source for increased bread on the table - and the source of additional incoime so they could bring relatives from other places....
What happened in the Mandate during the rule of the British was very different from what is occurring under Chinese rule of Turkestan and Tibet. The condition of the Arabs improved under the Mandate. The condition of the Uigurs and Tibetans is probably deteriorating under imperial Chinese rule.
62 - Ruvy
Glenn, there was one last point that I forgot to mention to you. The British signed a solemn obligation to erect a Jewish National Home in Mandate Palestine, according to the terms of the Resolutions on Palestine of 24-25 April 1920. There were no such obligations to Arabs who had several states on the way (Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) in the Middle East. This overturning both the spirit and letter of the Charter of the Mandate, both legally and illegally, cost at least one million Jews their lives and has embroiled this region in at least five wars that need not have been fought.
63 - Christopher Rose
ObAm: you're mistaken in saying that "this land was originally Jewish land, taken from the Jews by the Muslims. Yes, this happened centuries earlier, but so what, that doesn't change the reality that it was Jewish land."
The Jewish people originally came from an area that is now part of Iraq, so if we are going to play the original landowner game, let's get the facts right.
Ruvy's claims are based on the assertion that a mythical creature gave the Jews the land that is currently called Israel thousands of years ago. Some people may find that argument a little thin on reasonableness.
As to the original article, I personally don't see that there is a concept of Jewish guilt at all, either historically or contemporaneously.
Furthermore, Jewishness is a religion not a nationality, so most of the article is built upon bogus concepts and reasoning.
64 - Horace Mungin
This comment is addressed to the original thrust of the article:
Americans vote for presidental candidates, for the most part, based on what the candidates say they will do for America - not what they will do for other countries. All politics are local and anyone who thinks that any group of American voters should feel guilty because that person feel his favorite country's interest isn't being served by an president the American people elected to serve America's interest has his head in an unclean place and that's cool living in that other dimension where up is both up and down at the same time. Out is in and out, yours is mine and yours, and shit is all mixed up.
American voters, however they vote (thank G-O-D), vote what's in the interest of America first. There is not guilt, only a sinular recrimination and wishful thinking.
65 - Baronius
Horace - You hold no ill will for Reagan for opposing sanctions against South Africa?
66 - The Obnoxious American
Christopher:
"As to the original article, I personally don't see that there is a concept of Jewish guilt at all, either historically or contemporaneously.
Furthermore, Jewishness is a religion not a nationality, so most of the article is built upon bogus concepts and reasoning."
I'm pretty shocked that a moderator would comment in an article that they didn't read.
The article has NOTHING to do with Jewish nationalism OR Jewish guilt. The title refers to how I think other Jews should feel, not how they actually feel (which is unfortunate) and there is no suggestion in the article relating one way or another to the existence of Jewish guilt.
Further, as I have said several times in this thread, starting with my first comment in the thread (#3) is that the discussion of the status or righteousness of the land of Israel is not at all what the article is about, and is actually off topic.
Happy to have that discussion here, and figured it was inevitable, but please don't suggest that the article is built on these bogus concepts, because it isn't.
Same goes for you too Horace.
This article is about Obama's support for Iran as well as several other issues which are not good for Jews or Americans. It's just that Jews in particular, given our history and collective experience, should be even more keenly aware of how bad these policies are, and yet so many Jews voted for Obama which is incomprehensible. Read it, it's a pretty interesting article if I do say so myself.
67 - roger nowosielski
Horace is not denouncing taking a moral stance if and when possible. His argument, rather, is against the application of American interest in the negative - such as promoting the interests of some (Israel being one example) at the detriment to others.
68 - Ruvy
I also think given the above comments, you're clearly not interested in thinking about anything that's been discussed in this thread (which is off topic of the article btw) and instead wholly focused on stirring Ruvy's pot.
Heh,
OA, Obama's actions, supporting obvious enemies of Jews, has pushed an issue that American Jews would rather not think about to the front burner - another reason I supported him, and why of all people, I have NO buyer's remorse in having done so.
That issue is loyalty. Are you an American or a Jew? The truth is you cannot be both, because the interests of the crumbling American empire are in direct conflict with those of the Jewish entity in the Land of Israel. If the crumbling American empire is to survive by smearing Arab faeces all over the lips of the American president and other American officials, Jewish or otherwise, and by tossing Israel under an Arab bus, eventually American Jews have to choose between being American and being Jewish.
A whole stack of American "Jews" have walked away from Israel, choosing to be Americans, bowing to Obama, the priest of the setting sun in the West. American "Jewish" organizations are supporting a "two-state" solution, knowing in their guts that it is wrong, but trying to ignore the desire to vomit - or trying hard to convince themselves that Arabs killing Jews in Israel are no different than Jews in DP camps in Europe 63 years ago.
DeNial can be a difficult river to navigate.
All sorts of suicidal bullshit comes from attempting to navigate the River of Denial. "Intermarriage is inclusive". What a nice progressive concept, one designed to hide the fact that in two generations, the Jew who has intermarried is merely a distant memory on the family tree, the ugly monkey on a tree inhabited by cute small (Christian) squirrels. This is the kinder, gentler genocide I've mentioned earlier.
"Criticizing Israel and Zionism is not anti-Semitic". What a fine concept, one that covers over the fact that the saw you wield cuts down the only real shelter Jews have against pogroms, discrimination and all the agonies of Exile - including murderous genocides.
Are you getting the picture here? For you, and many other "American Jews", Obama is the fork in the road. Do you choose the country you know and love - the one that is about to say "fuck you, kike, you die?" Or do you choose the country you would rather not know - the one that offers you a real chance of survival - even as a Jew?
I saw this fork in the road a decade ago and made my choice.
Blessings from Liberated Samaria,
Ruvy
69 - The Obnoxious American
Ruvy and Roger,
"That issue is loyalty. Are you an American or a Jew? The truth is you cannot be both"
Excellent point Ruvy, and I agree it can't be both (unless you have dual citizenship). But, the interests of both America and Israel are not diametrically opposed. In fact, those that raise this as a choice between American values versus the needs of Israel are making yet another strawman argument, one of Obama's most favorite tools.
Israel wants to live in peace but due to extremist influence in the Islamic community, they are under constant threat. This same threat is faced by Americans, and not at all due to our relationship with Israel (even Osama Bin Laden, in his 1998 fatwah against the U.S., only mentioned Israel on the periphery).
To truly appease as Obama and his ilk are wont, we'd need to stop using foreign oil, allow Sharia for Muslims regardless of location, discontinue any and all interest in the middle east (read, allow the tyrants to continue to oppress) and countless other steps on our way to Dhimitude. We wouldn't end up with peace, we'd merely be tolerated, until we weren't.
Those that cast our support for Israel as a choice between war or peace with Islam have already given up the fight. When your survival is at stake, what sense does it make to disavow those who are fighting by your side (such as Israel)? None. Unless you are willing to go softly into that night. I'm not.
70 - Christopher Rose
ObAm, but I did read your article, so your response to my comment is misplaced. I guess you are better at "transmit" than "receive"...
I don't see that Obama is supporting Iran at all, nor have I seen anybody make a plausible case that he is.
Vastly amused to see Ruvy perpetrating his speaking with forked tongue so continuously, as if ignoring people who can rebut his nonsense would make them wrong.
There is no conflict of loyalty between "American and Jew". One is a nationality, the other is a religion. Apparently the latter is causing terminal paranoia in some people, to say nothing of a fondness for gutter language.
71 - roger nowosielski
Correct. To assume there is such a conflict is to assume most of the American Jews are schizophrenic. Of course, Ruvy does come awfully close to saying this very thing.
72 - Ruvy
The Jewish people originally came from an area that is now part of Iraq, so if we are going to play the original landowner game, let's get the facts right.
Ruvy's claims are based on the assertion that a mythical creature gave the Jews the land that is currently called Israel thousands of years ago
Let's clarify this for the erudite scholar from the Isle of Wight (I knew studying that gazetteer would come in handy one day!) and for the rest of you. It's not as simple as Chris would have you think.
avrahám ha'ivrí Abraham who crossed over, came from Sumer, in what is now known as Iraq. However, yehúda Judah, was born in Syria and had his children in the Land of Israel, then known as Canaan. The descendants of Judah, the Jews, arose in the Land of Israel. So we Jews trace our anscestry to the Land of Israel, being the descendants of one of the few original Sumerians to survive many disasters in the ancient world.
My beliefs are that G-d - not some mythical creature - gave this land as a gift to the Children of Israel, but that is not an issue I have raised here on this comment thread.
I have cited the sovereignty of the Jewish People over all of the Land of Israel based on the Resolutions on Palestine adopted on 24-25 April 1920, in San Remo, Italy by the victorious powers who divided up the Middle East after the Great War. They, the victors, divided the spoils of war.
These Resolutions are the only real international law applying to the Land of Israel, and everything that has followed to contravene or contradict these Resolutions are null and void - including Resolutions 181 of the UN General Assembly (1947), dividing the remnant of the Palestine Mandate in two, and Resolution 242 of the UN General Assembly (1967), attempting to undo the victory of the IDF in the Six Day War.
Those are the facts, laid out straight and clear, even clear enough for the erudite scholar from the Isle of Wight.
73 - Christopher Rose
It is funny how one person's facts are another person's superstitious nonsense.
To take Ruvy's point remotely seriously, he would have to prove that this god creature actually exists, something that nobody except some silver tongued con artists have successfully achieved in over 6,000 years.
As you are now so enamoured of facts, Ruvy, you could start by getting it into your head that I am on the Isle of Wight, not from it.
74 - Ruvy
My beliefs are that G-d - not some mythical creature - gave this land as a gift to the Children of Israel, but that is not an issue I have raised here on this comment thread.
Actually, I have raised this issue - but not with respect to the ownership of the Land. I have raised it with respect to the consequences of Jews rejecting the gift that G-d gave them - which is more germane to the original intended subject of OA's article. And repeat this point for OA and all the other Jews resident in Exile to read, understand and absorb.
Jews who reject the gift of the Land of Israel will come to a bad end for having rejected one of the three essential covenants that Judaism is based on - the Covenant of the Land. This has happened before - and it will happen again.
75 - The Obnoxious American
Chris,
I receive just fine. Your comment was pretty clear "I personally don't see that there is a concept of Jewish guilt at all" this statement is ignorant of the article, in which the words "Jewish Guilt" do not appear. It's the title, and a play on words... sheesh do i need to explain everything?
Second comment of yours "Jewishness is a religion not a nationality, so most of the article is built upon bogus concepts and reasoning" I never argued that Jewishness was a nationality. Is Christianity a nationality? Yet many people vote based on their Christian views. My good man, I recieve just fine, you may want to check the TX on your modem...
Roger,
Of course there is a conflict. As espoused by those such as Silas, that argue that an American First foreign policy means leaving Israel out to dry. And this is a legit viewpoint, I just disagree. Israel is an ally. If we dropped allies every time our enemies wanted us to, then we would have lost WW II. In full on appeasement mode, this concept of dropping an ally who inflames our enemies might make sense. Until you wake up and realize that the whole point of allies are to help us stand up to our enemies.