How should one define Judaism: by ME. 3:22am Sat Jul 12 '03 ! print article There has to be some standard that all people live by in order to define themselves as members of the same religion. That standard was first set by Moses with the Ten Commandments. If you follow those guidelines you are by definition a Jew. If you ignore them, than you are no longer a follower of Judaism, but an atheist. Similarly, A real Christian is any body who abides by the teachings of the Lord n’ savior Jesus Christ who has taught us to treat others as we would have liked to have been treated, a teaching we commonly call “the golden rule”. It seems that to be a faithful zionazi one would have to abandon all the rules given by Moses and the Lord and savior. The doctrine of Nazism and Zionism expects nothing less of their followers. add your comments

The zionists definition of Judaism. by - 4:10am Sat Jul 12 '03 print comment They claim that Jews are not bound by a contract to abide by Jewish morals and conduct themselves accordingly but are by their genes. The Nazis concur. Their definition of Jewry is impossible unless of course an eastern European Jew has an identical racial makeup to that of an Ethiopian Jew from the jungles of Africa, regardless of their individual faiths. Lets test their belief by dumping both Jews to the negev desert to see which one turns pink... add your comments

zionazism defined: by an antizionist jew 4:17am Sat Jul 12 '03 print comment Zionists are hostile to Truth, and if truth is reached by a faithful way of life, the Zionists will condemn that way of life. add your comments

Re-writing hystory as a hobby !! by AMR 10:52am Sat Jul 12 '03 print comment What a banch of confused people here... Tel me, have you made the re-writing of history your new hobby? Go and learn the history of the zionism before daring to criticise it. You are really a stupid people. add your comments

I (sadly) agree with AMR here (partially) by Bryan Atinsky 3:18pm Sat Jul 12 '03 bryan@indymedia.org.il print comment It seems that many of the commentators on Indymedia (from 'left' to 'right') seem to reject any form of reasoned scholarship and instead embrace trite and factually challenged slogan throwing. I am all for a radical critique of Zionist ideology, however, I think that it must be a reasoned critique based on some sort of relation to fact based scholarship that takes into consideration historical, ideological, cultural and wider contextual understandings of nationalism, the enlightenment, conceptions of ethnicity, etc. and not merely idealized and unverifiable conjecture. The original article says: "That standard was first set by Moses with the Ten Commandments. If you follow those guidelines you are by definition a Jew." This is just plain ignorant. There are actually 613 commandments, and the ten commandments were never used to define a Jew. Actually the 10 commandments are closely related to the laws of Noah, which define laws NON-JEWS need to follow, Jews on the other hand had to follow those and many more. Why is this important...? Because if your argument can be torn apart so easily, it does nothing to move forward the general critique of Zionist ideology. This is what was said in one comment: "Their definition of Jewry is impossible unless of course an eastern European Jew has an identical racial makeup to that of an Ethiopian Jew from the jungles of Africa, regardless of their individual faiths. Lets test their belief by dumping both Jews to the negev desert to see which one turns pink..." Besides the inherent racism of the statement about seeing which one turns pink, and the assumption that Ethiopian Jews came from Jungles because they are African (http://www.tourismethiopia.org/pages/naturalintro.asp), this is misguided on the more substantial level of how it relates to the actual Law of Return. This is the definition from the law of return: "4B. For the purposes of this Law, 'Jew' means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion." While this definition may assume genetic relations between the Jewish people, it is actually not essential to being defined as a Jew under the law of return. According to the Law of Return, if I am the non-religious child of a woman defined as Jewish, I am a jew. This could very well mean that my mother was a Christian converted under orthodox conversion standards and my father is a Muslim. If I can prove my mother already had an Orthodox conversion before I was born, I would still be legally as Jewish as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Secondly, if one is going to question the criteria of national citizenship in Israel, one should at least have some sort of idea of the scholarship that has been published on the topic of the origin and spread of nationalsim since the 1983 seminal work of Benedict Anderson titled "Imagined Communities". Without that, you are just critiquing nationalism in a bubble...or is your critique not against nationalism in general but only against the Zionist construction of nation, as if the others weren't also built on oppression, genocide and the creation of 'imagined communities' projected onto history (inter alia Australia, New Zealand, The United States)? As to the comment: "Zionists are hostile to Truth, and if truth is reached by a faithful way of life, the Zionists will condemn that way of life." Oh Boy!!...that sure gives us all a lot of information. Spoken like a true prophet of Truth with a capital T. What is a "faithfull way of life" anyway? Being a True Christian, a True Jew, a True Muslim...these definitions are so subjective they are meaningless. This is the epitome of uneducated and unverifiable slogan slinging that makes me despair of the possibility of rational critique in such a forum as Indymedia. Again, I am all for a radical critique of Israeli society, economy and Zionist ideology, but the possiblilty of open publishing shouldn't give you the idea that the unreasoned argumentation of writing a two sentence diatrabe can be a substitute for well thought out and reasoned argumentation. add your comments

Good Point Bryan by Ben 8:51pm Sat Jul 12 '03 print comment I agree with your comments, Bryan. But I want to point out that a constructive dialogue on the issue of Israeli society is virtually impossible here. I am pro-Israel, but I also seek a just solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, and I believe that a two-state solution is the best way to go: no one should tell either side how to live. But I often feel that most of the people who use this forum believe that Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state. When I see that, I won't pursue a discussion of issues internal to Israel. My reasoning is that someone who does not believe Israel has the right to exist forfeits the right to criticize internal issues within that existance since it would not be constructive, but rather for the purpose of destroying Israel. That is not to say that there isn't what to criticize about Israel. There is much that needs to change. But a discussion of what needs to change requires that those who participate in that discussion have the best in mind. Here, at Indymedia, that is not the case. So, my question is, How do support a radical critique of Israel (which usually concludes that Israel does not have the right to exist) and a radical critique of Israeli society (which is seperate from the radical critique of Israel as a national entity)? add your comments

Good point Ben: by zionists are generous! 11:03pm Sat Jul 12 '03 print comment I also believe that a two-state solution is the best way to go: 1/5 for them Pals... and the remainder is for Zionists. add your comments

Waxing philosophically , by dear brian 11:47pm Sat Jul 12 '03 print comment So you follow 700 laws instead of ten.(I doubt you know any of them by heart). As far as I’m concerned those extra laws are just spin for those needing to justify their constant breaking of the original laws. 'Thou shall lie','thou shall not steal','thou shall NOT have graven images','thou shall NOT kill'. If you break them but follow the other six hundred, well than you’re in good standing. add your comments

Not a question of generosity by Ben 11:47pm Sat Jul 12 '03 print comment People are always pushing for the '67 borders - even though there wasn't even a Palestine then. But if the future Palestinian state is too small, I'm sure that Jordan, which is 70% Palestinian (under the rule of a non-Palestinian monarch) wouldn't have a problem kicking in a few acres for their brothers. add your comments

To Ben: by A generous zionazi. 11:53pm Sat Jul 12 '03 print comment There was no jewish nation before 1948, so why do you recognize Israel? add your comments

Its the borders, stupid by Ben 12:44am Sun Jul 13 '03 print comment I'm not arguing against a Palestinian state. In fact, I support its creation. What I find confounding, however, is how people talk about the land before the Six-Day War as belonging to the Palestinians. But if there was no Palestine (and no Israeli occupation of Palestine) then, it couldn't have belong to them, now could it? That is why that territory (The West Bank and Gaza) is disputed territory. Of course, Israel is currently occupying it as well, and it will eventually become a Palestinian state. But there is nothing that clearly marks the exact border between Israel and the Palestinians, not even the green line. The closest we have is a series of UN resolutions (like 242), which are so vague, they have been subject to numerous, contradictory interpretations. Its a tough pill to swallow, and I expect a lot of people to disagree with me here. But to me it is not a question of pre-set borders. The final status will be reached after negotiations, and will probably end up with some the West Bank, where there are high concentrations of Jews living, staying with Israel in exchange for some of the land around Gaza that belongs to Israel today. I don't see why this is so controversial. Both sides would get what they want this way. add your comments

Pack your bags Cause the Jews are back! by ? 1:45am Sun Jul 13 '03 print comment According to bryan: “According to the Law of Return, if I am the non-religious child of a woman defined as Jewish, I am a Jew. This could very well mean that my mother was a Christian converted under orthodox conversion standards and my father is a Muslim.” So according to that standard- The Palestinian People who were ethnically cleansed from their homes at gun point can convert to Judaism and return back to their original homes. add your comments

Is that what you were in fact saying? by ? 5:47am Sun Jul 13 '03 print comment What brian essentially is saying is that as long as one does not subject oneself to the superficial procedure of changing from a religion to another, one may be dispossessed from his or her home. That same person, with the same moral fiber will be allowed to stay in his ancestral home on the condition that he ends up converting... add your comments

Further more: by Me, 6:22am Sun Jul 13 '03 print comment Why would one voluntarily convert to a certain religion that demands of its followers the dispossession of an entire people because they are of a different religion? add your comments

You misunderstand... by Bryan Atinsky 1:33pm Sun Jul 13 '03 print comment commentator wrote: "So you follow 700 laws instead of ten.(I doubt you know any of them by heart). As far as I'm concerned those extra laws are just spin for those needing to justify their constant breaking of the original laws. 'Thou shall lie','thou shall not steal','thou shall NOT have graven images','thou shall NOT kill'. If you break them but follow the other six hundred, well than you're in good standing." Look, I am not religious in any way. I think all religions are fallible human creations and I would just as well believe in the divine origins of the Torah, New Testament, Mahabarata, etc., as I would the divine origins of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". And while it is true that I don't murder or steal, never commited adultry, very infrequently lie, etc., this has nothing to do with the fact that they are included in the 613 Laws. It, instead, has a lot to do with the fact that my parents are good human beings who instilled me with the common sense to respect my fellow humans, irrespective of their religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, socio-economic class, etc. My point in bringing this up, was instead, that if you are going to argue a point, you need to at least properly frame that which you are then going to critique. If you don't do that, you run the risk of formulating a critique that doesn't really address its subject matter in any realistic manner. When your framing of the object is offbase, even on minor points, it will be very easy for your target audience to disregard the entire content of your argument (even if it was sound on the whole) by attacking these faulty points. As far as I understand from my knowledge of Jewish theology and history, the Ten Commandments were never considered the basis for defining whether or not someone was Jewish. To assume it to be the case is to assume incorrectly. I have no vested interest in the working definition of Jewishness. If it was up to me, anyone who wants to consider themselves Jewish is hereby considered as such and has the right to live wherever they damn well please. In fact, same goes for my definition of Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Zoroastrian, Taoist, animist, etc. However, I don't have the power to enforce my definition of who is considered Jewish. Therefore, if I am going to attempt to critique the existing parameters used to define Jewishness, I have to acually invest the energy to discern what these parameters are, how they are used in practice, their limits, their context, and their history. After this effort is given, the construction of an argument will contribute towards a critique of the actual issue concerned. Another issue besides understanding the object you choose to critique is to make sure that your chosen object is actually important to your argument. The same is true of the comments that regarded the definition of Jewish in Israel and the Right of Return. I may not agree with the morality of how Jewishness is defined in Israel, but if I am going to critique it, I need to understand the actual implications of the definition. And it is my belief that you did not understand. As for Ben: There are many people who consider it a contradiction that Israel professes to be both a democratic and Jewish state. Actually, many people from the right and the left see it as a contradiction. For the people on the right, they say, when in doubt the Jewish state comes before Democracy, and conversely, many on the left believe that Democracy needs to come before Jewish. There are also many people who say that the dividing the territory into two states is both artificial and unfair. They call for a single bi-national democratic state that will treat all citizens, irrespective of religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, socio-economic class, etc., as equals. While you may disagree with the feasability or rationale behind these arguments, does that mean you should simply reject them full stop? I would suggest, on the other hand, that you should attempt not to belittle them and instead argue against their points, you shouldn't constantly suspect that they have alterior motives, and instead give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their sincerety. If everyone attempted to do this here, then chances are, even if people continue to disagree, they will have more realistic understandings of the other and help to formulate more accurate and richer base of knowledge which can then be used for better argumentation. add your comments

... by yawn 1:58pm Sun Jul 13 '03 print comment bryan atinsky, lets cut the crap shall we and let us know how much percentage of land you are willing to give back the Palestinians- an inch, a foot, a yard? Define your agenda for us instead of telling us how to argue properly... add your comments

Thanks, Bryan by Ben 2:08pm Sun Jul 13 '03 print comment Thanks Bryan for your comments. It is true that some people believe that Israel cannot be both a Jewish and a democratic state. And sure, there are people (many from the previous catagory) who believe that a bi-national state would be an improvement over the current reality. Your suggestion that I reject these ideas "full-stop" and am suspicious of their movtives is only partially true. I reject the idea that Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic, and I reject your suggestion "that the dividing the territory into two states is both artificial and unfair." Honestly I don't know what you mean by unfair, since the two-state solution offers autonomy to both sides. What is fairer than allowing all people to rule themselves? I don't doubt your sincerity on these issues. But I do have many reasons to doubt the sincerity of many others. There are many people who believe Israel is nothing more than a state created by people who stole Arab land and have no legitimacy to be here at all. These people distort Zionist ideas, and then reach conclusions that Israel could only exist as a racist entity, and therefore better that it not exist before. I am not going to run through Jewish and Israeli history at this point to disprove those theories. Much has been written already on these issues, and I have nothing original to add. But my point above was that these people, who already reject Israel's existance, prevent any meaningful dialogue on internal issues in Israel, such as the state's treatment of Bedouin, unfair policies toward Arabs, etc...because they just take these issues as further proof that Israel should not exist. I don't bring up discussions of these issues here for this reason. In the same way, Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state cannot be debated with someone who has not taken the time to understand what is meant by Jewishness. How can one state that there is a contradiction between democracy and a second term one hardly understands. Maybe the contradiction is caused by that very failure to understand. Again, there is much to say here, and little of it is agreed upon universally (among Jews), but that is presently one of Israel's biggest challenges. But instead of getting to the bottom of these issues, I feel compelled to argue on Israel's behalf against people who believe it is alright to discriminate against Israelis at Oxford, etc... It is wrong, as you say, to believe that everyone has it out for Israel. It is also naive to believe everyone has Israel's and the Jewish people's best interests in mind. It is good to give people the benefit of the doubt, but that is when there is doubt. All too often, people reveal their ill intent explicitly and clearly. add your comments

Hey Yawn...assume the wrong position. by Bryan Atinsky 2:47pm Sun Jul 13 '03 bryan@indymedia.org.il print comment Personally, best case scenario I am for something along the lines of this: (http://indymedia.org.il/imc/webcast/display.html3?article_id=15736) But minus that, I would say that something along the line of Guy Mandron's conception of two viable states from the July/August 2001 edition of the New Left Review.(http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR24404.shtml) Though I don't think that it took into consideration seriously enough, the issue of fresh water sources and aquifers. If not that, then removal of all Jewish settlements over the green line, Palestine in pre-67 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital (if any settlers would like to live in Palestine under Palestinian law, that is their choice). Any slight border changes in one place must be compensated by Israel giving up territory in another place (all of which must be agreed upon by both parties), and territory in the West Bank must be contiguous. But it seems to me yawn, that you are easily threatened by any argumentation that doesn't define issues as black and white. I am sorry to see that. Something along any of these lines, but I am open to suggestions. add your comments

hey bryan by > 2:53pm Sun Jul 13 '03 print comment How do you feel about the Right Of Return for the natives? Just state the facts, please. add your comments

Why don't you spend more than 1 min thinking by Bryan Atinsky 3:13pm Sun Jul 13 '03 bryan@indymedia.org.il print comment The answer is here if you just spend some actual time reading instead of needing to be spoonfed: http://indymedia.org.il/imc/webcast/display.html3?article_id=15736 Read it and then if you have any questions for me, go ahead. add your comments