https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2243518,2244145#msg-2244145

I was at puppy obedience training so missed your post until after the thread had closed.

Just wanted to add to your response that it is still fairly typical today for wealthier Jews who want to immigrate from their home country they choose to immigrate to America. The poorer Jews tend to immigrate to Israel. That includes the Russian Jews, European Jews (mostly French Jews that are left, and that would be mostly Sephardic Jews as the Ashkenazi Jews have largely disappeared from the European continent owing to the Holocaust.) There has been a small re-birth of Jewry to Europe to places like Berlin, but they are primarily migrating from Russia and Eastern Europe (from former Communist bloc countries.) Ethiopian Jews were able to make Aliyah (immigration) to Israel once they were able to establish their Jewishness. Ethiopian migration to Israel has been ongoing in waves since 1934.

As for Golda Meir, she is one of Israel's great leaders and ambassadors. She was a great diplomat who was able to negotiate and also fight when it was necessary to defend her country. She was prepared to do both as a stateswoman and Prime Minister for Israel. Another of her quotes about Israel was,

"Above all, this country is our own. Nobody has to get up in the morning and worry what his neighbors think of him. Being a Jew is no problem here.”

She was born an American, and would therefore have carried a dual citizenship to be an Israeli does not require one to forego their American citizenship.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2019 08:29PM by Amyjo.

"As for Golda Meir, she is one of Israel's great leaders and ambassadors.":

Interesting. Mormon women can't hold priesthood authority, yet the Jews have a woman as their leader.

Plus the Jews have leaders here, too!

pollythinks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "As for Golda Meir, she is one of Israel's great
> leaders and ambassadors.":
>
> Interesting. Mormon women can't hold priesthood
> authority, yet the Jews have a woman as their
> leader.

Gentle reminder: "Jew" and "Israeli" are not synonymous words.

Most Jews (by far) are NOT Israeli....and about 25% of Israelis are not Jews.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most Jews (by far) are NOT Israeli....and about
> 25% of Israelis are not Jews.

What a menorahity.

Oy vey

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pollythinks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "As for Golda Meir, she is one of Israel's
> great
> > leaders and ambassadors.":
> >
> > Interesting. Mormon women can't hold
> priesthood
> > authority, yet the Jews have a woman as their
> > leader.
>
> Gentle reminder: "Jew" and "Israeli" are not
> synonymous words.
>
> Most Jews (by far) are NOT Israeli....and about
> 25% of Israelis are not Jews.

App half of the world's Jewish population live in Israel. The other half make their home in the United States. "With just over 6.5 million Jews, Israel is the only Jewish majority and explicitly Jewish state. Jewish population figures for the United States are contested, ranging between 5.7 and 6.8 million. (The core global total of Jews jumps above 15 million if the highest American estimates are assumed)." Wikipedia

The largest population of Jews outside of either Israel or the US is France where Sephardics number slightly over 450,000. From France is where there is an exodus of Jews immigrating to either Israel or the United States depending on their immigration papers. The poorer ones tend to move to Israel, while the wealthier ones try to immigrate to the USA.

"While dozens of countries host at least a small Jewish population, the community is concentrated in a handful: Israel accounting for 44.5% of Jews worldwide, followed by the United States 39.3% and France 3.1% of the Jewish population worldwide, while a total of 98 countries host the other 13.1%.[1]" Wiki

The concentration of Jews that are in Israel are Israeli, nonetheless. Which is the majority of the population there. The Arabs (Muslims and Christians,) are a shrinking population. When they are gone there will be no one to replace them. They are not allowed to immigrate there, unlike the Jews are. Once they die off, that will be the end of their villages. Then Israel will be all Jewish. Their children are not replacing their elders at the same pace as the Jewish population is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2019 09:40PM by Amyjo.

> The concentration of Jews that are in Israel are
> Israeli, nonetheless. Which is the majority of the
> population there. The Arabs (Muslims and
> Christians,) are a shrinking population. When they
> are gone there will be no one to replace them.
> They are not allowed to immigrate there, unlike
> the Jews are. Once they die off, that will be the
> end of their villages. Then Israel will be all
> Jewish. Their children are not replacing their
> elders at the same pace as the Jewish population
> is.

This is false. The Arab population continues to grow albeit at a decelerating pace. There is no prospect of their numbers "shrinking" or ever reaching a point where "there will be no one to replace them."

There is no immigration by them or their families to Israel. Their children are leaving whenever possible, and their numbers are shrinking. They are not being replaced by future generations. If their numbers are growing at all it is because of their having large families, and due to polygamy.

"Among Arabs, Muslims have the highest birth rate, followed by Druze, and then Christians.[130] The phrase demographic threat (or demographic bomb) is used within the Israeli political sphere to describe the growth of Israel's Arab citizenry as constituting a threat to its maintenance of its status as a Jewish state with a Jewish demographic majority.

Israeli historian Benny Morris stated in 2004 that, while he strongly opposes expulsion of Israeli Arabs, in case of an "apocalyptic" scenario where Israel comes under total attack with non-conventional weapons and comes under existential threat, an expulsion might be the only option. He compared the Israeli Arabs to a "time bomb" and "a potential fifth column" in both demographic and security terms and said they are liable to undermine the state in time of war.[131]

Several politicians[132][133] have viewed the Arabs in Israel as a security and demographic threat.[134][135][136]

The phrase "demographic bomb" was famously used by Benjamin Netanyahu in 2003[137] when he noted that, if the percentage of Arab citizens rises above its current level of about 20 percent, Israel will not be able to maintain a Jewish demographic majority. Netanyahu's comments were criticized as racist by Arab Knesset members and a range of civil rights and human rights organizations, such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.[138] Even earlier allusions to the "demographic threat" can be found in an internal Israeli government document drafted in 1976 known as the Koenig Memorandum, which laid out a plan for reducing the number and influence of Arab citizens of Israel in the Galilee region.

In 2003, the Israeli daily Ma'ariv published an article entitled "Special Report: Polygamy is a Security Threat", detailing a report put forth by the Director of the Population Administration at the time, Herzl Gedj; the report described polygamy in the Bedouin sector a "security threat" and advocated means of reducing the birth rate in the Arab sector.[139] The Population Administration is a department of the Demographic Council, whose purpose, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, is: "...to increase the Jewish birthrate by encouraging women to have more children using government grants, housing benefits, and other incentives".[140] In 2008 the minister of the interior appointed Yaakov Ganot as new head of the Population Administration, which according to Haaretz is "probably the most important appointment an interior minister can make".[141]

A January 2006 study rejects the "demographic time bomb" threat based on statistical data that shows Jewish births have increased while Arab births have begun to drop.[142] The study noted shortcomings in earlier demographic predictions (for example, in the 1960s, predictions suggested that Arabs would be the majority in 1990). The study also demonstrated that Christian Arab and Druze birth rates were actually below those of Jewish birth rates in Israel. The study used data from a Gallup poll to demonstrate that the desired family size for Arabs in Israel and Jewish Israelis were the same. The study's population forecast for 2025 predicted that Arabs would comprise only 25% of the Israeli population. Nevertheless, the Bedouin population, with its high birth rates, continues to be perceived as a threat to a Jewish demographic majority in the south, and a number of development plans, such as the Blueprint Negev, address this concern.[143]

A study showed that in 2010, Jewish birthrates rose by 31% and 19,000 diaspora Jews immigrated to Israel, while the Arab birthrate fell by 2%.[144]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

> There is no immigration by them or their families
> to Israel. Their children are leaving whenever
> possible, and their numbers are shrinking. They
> are not being replaced by future generations. If
> their numbers are growing at all it is because of
> their having large families, and due to polygamy.

So the Palestinian Arabs' "numbers are shrinking" but their "numbers" may be "growing?" Which is it, Amyjo?


--------------
> "Among Arabs, Muslims have the highest birth rate,
> followed by Druze, and then Christians.[130] The
> phrase demographic threat (or demographic bomb) is
> used within the Israeli political sphere to
> describe the growth of Israel's Arab citizenry as
> constituting a threat to its maintenance of its
> status as a Jewish state with a Jewish demographic
> majority.

That doesn't say anything about the actual fertility rate of Palestinian Arabs.


------------
> Israeli historian Benny Morris stated in 2004
> that, while he strongly opposes expulsion of
> Israeli Arabs, in case of an "apocalyptic"
> scenario where Israel comes under total attack
> with non-conventional weapons and comes under
> existential threat, an expulsion might be the only
> option. He compared the Israeli Arabs to a "time
> bomb" and "a potential fifth column" in both
> demographic and security terms and said they are
> liable to undermine the state in time of
> war.[131]

See above. This says nothing about fertility rates.


---------------
> Several politicians[132][133] have viewed the
> Arabs in Israel as a security and demographic
> threat.[134][135][136]

See above.



--------------
> The phrase "demographic bomb" was famously used by
> Benjamin Netanyahu in 2003[137] when he noted
> that, if the percentage of Arab citizens rises
> above its current level of about 20 percent,
> Israel will not be able to maintain a Jewish
> demographic majority. Netanyahu's comments were
> criticized as racist by Arab Knesset members and a
> range of civil rights and human rights
> organizations, such as the Association for Civil
> Rights in Israel.[138] Even earlier allusions to
> the "demographic threat" can be found in an
> internal Israeli government document drafted in
> 1976 known as the Koenig Memorandum, which laid
> out a plan for reducing the number and influence
> of Arab citizens of Israel in the Galilee region.

See above.


---------------
>
> In 2003, the Israeli daily Ma'ariv published an
> article entitled "Special Report: Polygamy is a
> Security Threat", detailing a report put forth by
> the Director of the Population Administration at
> the time, Herzl Gedj; the report described
> polygamy in the Bedouin sector a "security threat"
> and advocated means of reducing the birth rate in
> the Arab sector.[139] The Population
> Administration is a department of the Demographic
> Council, whose purpose, according to the Israeli
> Central Bureau of Statistics, is: "...to increase
> the Jewish birthrate by encouraging women to have
> more children using government grants, housing
> benefits, and other incentives".[140] In 2008 the
> minister of the interior appointed Yaakov Ganot as
> new head of the Population Administration, which
> according to Haaretz is "probably the most
> important appointment an interior minister can
> make".[141]

See above.


--------------
> A January 2006 study rejects the "demographic time
> bomb" threat based on statistical data that shows
> Jewish births have increased while Arab births
> have begun to drop.[142] The study noted
> shortcomings in earlier demographic predictions
> (for example, in the 1960s, predictions suggested
> that Arabs would be the majority in 1990). The
> study also demonstrated that Christian Arab and
> Druze birth rates were actually below those of
> Jewish birth rates in Israel. The study used data
> from a Gallup poll to demonstrate that the desired
> family size for Arabs in Israel and Jewish
> Israelis were the same. The study's population
> forecast for 2025 predicted that Arabs would
> comprise only 25% of the Israeli population.
> Nevertheless, the Bedouin population, with its
> high birth rates, continues to be perceived as a
> threat to a Jewish demographic majority in the
> south, and a number of development plans, such as
> the Blueprint Negev, address this concern.[143]

Well, this is closer. But it is from 2006, doesn't say that Palestinian fertility rates are lower than those of Jewish Israelis, doesn't join you in saying that those rates are negative, and makes a projection for 2025 that is wildly incorrect. All in all, not a great source.


--------------
> A study showed that in 2010, Jewish birthrates
> rose by 31% and 19,000 diaspora Jews immigrated to
> Israel, while the Arab birthrate fell by
> 2%.[144]"

At last!

But a single source about a single year from a newspaper? And it posits a negative fertility rate for Arabs that better sources (see below) failed to perceive?


--------------
Check some real sources, including the CIA Factbook, the UN, the Palestinian Central Bureau, the US Census Bureau, the Federal Reserve, and the Jewish Center for Public Affairs.

All of those sources have the Palestinian Arab population continuing to grow at a fertility rate of 3-4, which means that the numbers are still rising rapidly and there is no indication of their ever approaching zero as you suggest.






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Palestinian_territories

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/palestine-population/

http://jcpa.org/article/no-arab-demographic-time-bomb/

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINPSE

The Mormons can't hold a candle to Judaism until they can take their lessons from a woman the likes of Golda.

:o)

Well, heck, that's not fair! We all know mormonism was made up!

Nope, because Judaism has nine of them.

I'm thinking of getting this t-shirt. It is so bad ass.

https://www.etsy.com/listing/168606340/jew-chainz-two-chainz-hanukkah-sweater?gpla=1&gao=1&utm_campaign=shopping_us_wethouse_sfc_osa&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_custom1=0&utm_content=6276524&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgMfUvPnN4wIVwsDACh2hvgDMEAQYAiABEgKGXPD_BwE

pollythinks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "As for Golda Meir, she is one of Israel's great
> leaders and ambassadors.":
>
> Interesting. Mormon women can't hold priesthood
> authority, yet the Jews have a woman as their
> leader.

I don't know how it was received by certain groups of Jews. Some are progressive but the more ultra-orthodox types probably didn't take to it well. Israel is a land of paradoxes...

I don't agree with everything Golda did, but she was.in office during a period when terrorist attacks were very common and she had to deal with them.The Munich Massacre took place under her watch. Today things are.somewhat different.Also, I have a lot of respect for Israel but that doesn't mean I think they have always been right in respect to the Palestinians. There are two sides and it is a difficult situation.

I sometimes think what would happen if First Peoples of The Americas carved out a homeland here...

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I sometimes think what would happen if First
> Peoples of The Americas carved out a homeland
> here...

Many analogies exist with these two "different" situations.

Insightful observation, Elder Berry.

Except that Elder Berry unfortunately has the formulation backwards. Fix that and yes, there are many analogies.

Just as it was foreign settlers carving out a homeland among America’s “First Peoples”, it is foreign settlers carving out a homeland among the Palestinian People.

Oof! That's gonna get some pushback!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oof! That's gonna get some pushback!


Imagine thinking that your ancestors were trying to carve out a homeland, instead of, you know...

Oh, I agree with you. My comment was about the unenlightened, who still see Manifest Destiny as divinely inspired.

This is exactly right. Manifest Destiny is a religiously-based principle that denies rights to some peoples that it bestows on others.

As I try to explain below, something very similar applies to the Israeli project. It's a politically and morally dangerous principle.

Human has it right. The idea that one has a right to live, and dominate, a place his ancestors once inhabited is profoundly dangerous.

And oh so human.

Ecce Homo indeed!

I don't agree with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, but the situation is more.complicated than some.posters seem to think.
1.Even after the Diaspora there were Jews in Palestine.
2.During most of this time Palestine was occupied by foreigners and they had no autonomy.
3.Britain promised Palestine to both Jews and Arabs while they had the mandate.
4.After the Holocaust,Jews definitely needed a homeland.
5.The U.N. Partition agreement divided Palestine into two states-one Jewish and one Arab and established Jerusalem as an international city. The Jews accepted this. The Arabs declared war on them. This state of war,not the actual fighting persisted for decades.
6.The Arab states encouraged the Palestinians to leave in 1947 saying they would return in victory. When Israel won, there was a large group of homeless people and no one took much responsibility for them. That includes both sides.

> 1.Even after the Diaspora there were Jews in
> Palestine.

What relevance does that have? Your principle would allow Native Americans to choose a place in the Americas, congregate there, and establish their own state at the expense of that region's current non-NA inhabitants. Likewise, your principle would allow the Germans in the Sudetenland to dispossess the Czechs there and, well, you know, World War Two and stuff. Revanchism is a policy that has caused many, many wars.


----------------
> 2.During most of this time Palestine was occupied
> by foreigners and they had no autonomy.

So what? Does the fact that the Mongols conquered India and established the Moghul Dynasty mean that Indians were a subject people and that England subsequently had a right to assume dominance of the subcontinent? In your scenario, the Indians and the Palestinians Arabs did not, do not, and never will have the right to self-determination because at one point or another they were subject peoples.

Of course, you could apply the same rule to Jews. Their lands had been "occupied by foreigners [basically everywhere they went] and they had no autonomy." Your argument implies that because they were once (well, much more than once) treated like subhumans, they may still don't have a right to their own lands and government.

Like revanchism, this is a terrible principle to assert.


----------------
> 3.Britain promised Palestine to both Jews and
> Arabs while they had the mandate.

Britain made those promises BEFORE it had the mandate. The Balfour Declaration, for instance, was issued in late 1917. The mandate came at the peace conference in 1922. Britain had no historical or legal right to make any promises to anyone in 1917.


----------------
> 4.After the Holocaust,Jews definitely needed a
> homeland.

Arguably true. But so too did the Palestinian Arabs. The problem is that the Jewish problem (or that of any other people subjected to genocide) does not imply a moral right to dispossess any particular other people.


-------------
> 5.The U.N. Partition agreement divided Palestine
> into two states-one Jewish and one Arab and
> established Jerusalem as an international city.
> The Jews accepted this. The Arabs declared war on
> them. This state of war,not the actual fighting
> persisted for decades.

So the UN Partition was legitimate but every subsequent UN resolution condemning Israeli suppression of Palestinian Arabs is illegitimate? Either UN decisions are legally and morally binding or they are not. You can't have it both ways.


------------------
> 6.The Arab states encouraged the Palestinians to
> leave in 1947 saying they would return in victory.

Does that mean Israel's conquest of the West Bank and Gaza was morally legitimate? Pick your war: any war. How does the fact that the losers were supported by outside states diminish the moral standing of those losers? Surely it does not.


-----------------
> When Israel won, there was a large group of
> homeless people and no one took much
> responsibility for them. That includes both sides.

True. But how does that vitiate the Palestinians' right to their own homes?


---------------
There is something going on below the surface of this discussion. Jews deserve, like anyone else, to enjoy every human right. But that does not mean they have a right to land that their ancestors occupied thousands of years ago any more than it means the Palestinians, whose ancestors were largely the same people, do not have a right to that land. You, and others, are applying principles unequally.

Why does that happen? It's pretty clear that in the eyes of many, Jews' history, their religious traditions as extended through Christianity, endow them with a set of political privileges that other peoples are not given. Unless one accepts the parochial religious underpinnings of that vision, there is no moral logic to it.

Exactly

OK. I didn't go into Israeli wrongs against the Palestinians of which there are many because other posters seem to have covered that. There were implications that Israel has no right to exist and some very harsh comments on Golda Meir. Again, I don't agree with everything she did but the poster did ignore then realities of of her time as prime minister and did take her comment out of context. Another poster seems to think it is questionable that Europe's Jews needed a place to go after the Holocaust. Really???
I have taken college level classes on the Mid East conflict,some taught by Arabs, and taught high school classes on the subject. I am not claiming to be an expert on the subject, but I do have some knowledge of the issues. I was simply trying to inject some facts into the discussion. It is a complicated situation and both sides have legitimate complaints. I am old enough to remember Arab terrorists hijacking planes, blowing up school buses, etc.Entebbe and the Munich Massacre come to mind. On the other hand, blowing up he homes of Palestinians suspected of terrorism without a trial is wrong. So are other hardline Israeli practices in short it is complicated

And it seems that all the uninvolved spectators are taking sides based on the religion in which they were raised! Or the current state of their political conscience!

Could anything change it to a 'we're in it together' situation rather than the either/ or situation it is now?


...besides an attack from outer space by 6 foot tall, baby-eating, hairy spiders...

If you mean me, I am not taking either side completely and religion has nothing to do with it.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you mean me, I am not taking either side
> completely and religion has nothing to do with it.

This is my long studied, and long and deeply considered, opinion as well: Religion has nothing to do with it.

Right now: two different families have legitimate claims to the same area of land.

The only realistic "solution" I am able to envision is long-term intermarriage.

If this were to occur, the bi-cultural kids would eventually be able to work it out: starting slowly for sure, and likely making missteps along the way, but eventually--down the road-- creating a new, more inclusive, consciousness which could accommodate the just claims of both sides.

Agree

> Another poster seems to think it is questionable
> that Europe's Jews needed a place to go after the
> Holocaust. Really???

You can use my name, bona dea. Really you can. And yes, whether Jews would benefit on balance from the establishment of Israel was never an easy question to answer.

A lot of Jews thought the formation of a Jewish state was a mistake because it would alienate the Arabs, polarize the Middle East in a way that would drive Jews out of other regional countries, and also add political complexity to efforts to integrate into societies around the world. That is why Hertz was controversial, many European Jews thought his project would ruin their standing in Europe, and even today there are Jews who think Israel was a bad idea.

I would add that the notion that "Europe's Jews need a place to go" is one shared by unsavory people, including Hitler, who ordered the investigation of several places outside of Europe and even authorized diplomatic negotiations with some countries. Creating a place where a repressed people can immigrate to often goes hand in hand with greater repression and even genocide--as in Yugoslavia. So no, the idea that the European Jews should leave Europe is not as compelling as you might think.


---------------
> It is a complicated situation and both sides have
> legitimate complaints. I am old enough to remember
> Arab terrorists hijacking planes, blowing up
> school buses, etc.Entebbe and the Munich Massacre
> come to mind.

Are you old enough to remember the wave of Israeli terrorism against Arabs and British that produced and accompanied the birth of Israel? Probably not. But it was appallingly real.

And whether or not Arab extremists have done horrible things, as they assuredly have, does not mean Palestinian farmers may justly be denied their rights. The terror you describe is therefore largely a diversion from the core issue of how Jews and Arabs can live together in a shared land.


--------------
> On the other hand, blowing up he
> homes of Palestinians suspected of terrorism
> without a trial is wrong. So are other hardline
> Israeli practices in short it is complicated

There are people on this website who believe that it would be great if the Palestinian Arabs simply faded out of existence. That is a horrible thing to desire. The answer has to be resolution of intra-Palestinian problems on a bilateral basis. Apartheid, expulsion, and a continuation of the present festering problems would all be grave mistakes endangering both Jews and Arabs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2019 08:24PM by Lot's Wife.

I never said differently. I said the Israelis committed atrocities too such as blowing up homes. As for pre statehood, , both sides committed atrocities just as happens in most conflicts. I am aware of Begin blowing up the King David Hotel and, no, I don't approve of that or of him. He was a terrorist I also dislike the current PM. Again, read the whole post as you are missing the point. Just because I didn't mention all the Jewish atrocities doesn't mean they didn't exist. NB, I didn't mention all the Arab atrocities either.I also believe the Palestinains should have a state of by their own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2019 08:28PM by bona dea.

Thanks bona dea, for sharing your balanced approach and views on the issues involved with the subject at hand. I appreciate your willingness to broach it despite the complexity of the issues.

I can tell you're an educator by your balanced and steady approach on the subject without getting into the heated debate some here would try to devolve the discussion into.

I agree that religion has nothing to do with it either. It's a contest of wills between the land and sovereign peoples. There are Israelis who support a two-state solution. Ruling factions however are the ultimate arbiters.

Hey, I am not "pulling" for either side. As was pointed out, it's a complicated family matter!

I was referring to the basic notion that 'christians' automatically pull for a Jewish homeland and Moslems pull for a Palestinian state. The non-religious pull for one side or the other based, usually, on political or cultural preferences.

When you meet someone new, it may take awhile, but you can usually figure out his/her position before it finally gets announced.

And at the risk of being met with a chorus of boos, it has nothing to do with RfM.

Ok. There is some truth to that especially among evangelicaos. I am not evangelical though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2019 09:06PM by bona dea.

That is not what EOD said. He said that Christians, and people with Christian backgrounds, tend thoughtlessly to accept the assumptions with which they were raised.

You are adding two different elements, saying he is right insofar as evangelicals--and especially Latino evangelicals--are susceptible to that tendency.

Why the need to redefine his statement to exclude people with mainstream Christian backgrounds? Why narrow his statement still further by adding an ethnic component?

It should surprise no one that people carry childhood beliefs into their adult lives; that people can find enlightenment in some areas while failing to find it in other areas. And it should not be surprising that countries and people with a long history of Biblical experience should unwittingly inherit presumptions about the return to Israel and the establishment of an Israeli state.

Is that hard to acknowledge?

Not a big deal, but are there any Christians who don't care about the book of revelations?

If one views the Bible as the word of one's personal ghawd, then one HAS to have a gathering of Jews in the holy land!

A lot of non literalist Christians don't care for Revelation. Not all of course. That was the reason I brought up evangelicals. They believe it literally and pretty much-needed anything Israel does.

The problem, I think, is that the old Christian predisposition to accept the return to Israel was so strong and so universal that people started viewing it as objective fact independent of Christianity. So even secularists in the US and elsewhere with strong Christian traditions tend to accept what are in fact highly colored propositions.

That doesn't mean they don't intend well; many if not most of them want what is fair for the Jews and for the Palestinians. But mistaken sentiment leads to mistaken policy, often against the wishes of the policy makers themselves.

This matters because solving complex human problems requires objectivity. In the case of Israel/Palestine, there has been far too much subjectivity on both sides. The odds of a lasting resolution would go up if the unconscious prejudices were recognized and confronted.

A lack of clarity has made things worse. We must hope for more clarity going forward.

I read this yesterday, but since then I have been asked to respond to this, so I will.

I agree that discrimination is "wrong," but in the global society we live in there are literally a world of nuances involved. Many other countries, and many other cultures, "discriminate" as a part of their own worldview (Japan, Nepal, every American Indian tribe I am aware of, etc.).

The situation in Israel is somewhat different in that its creation (as the result of a vote by the United Nations) necessarily involved discrimination from its founding moment: the immediate LEGAL necessity to determine "Who is a Jew?" (meaning: who, exactly, was eligible for immigration to the new state of Israel....and further, was eligible for Israeli citizenship).

The first working definition of the new state of Israel proved to be not broad enough (it excluded people of Jewish descent who were considered to be Jews by the Nazis (and, therefore, could be "legally" murdered according to Nazi law)....but simultaneously, were not Jewish "enough" to be considered Jews by Halacha/"Jewish" [religious] law). Once this "blip" was identified, Israeli immigration law was expanded to include anyone who would have met the "Nazi definition" of Jew, whether or not that family was ever, in real life, actually threatened by the Nazis (or whether they were Jewish as a matter of self-identification, or in their daily lives, either).

There was further turmoil (which still exists) over the question of conversions to Judaism. Because of the immediate political necessities in the 1947-1948 "nation founding" period, the political calculus led to the formation of the two Chief Rabbinates (one Ashkenazi; the other Sephardi), and [this is the political part] to keep these highly-important POLITICAL forces agreeable to whichever Israeli government was in office at any given time, "religious" questions regarding Jewish status was entirely turned over to them--which meant that the Israeli nation-wide law on immigration was necessarily, and continually, in conflict with Jewish "religious" law AS INTERPRETED BY EACH OF THE TWO CHIEF RABBINATES. This sounds complicated because it IS complicated--and it is often hair-pulling insane, so far as the people directly concerned are forced to deal with it.

The bottom line is: a person can legally emigrate to Israel AS a Jew, but then be considered NOT a Jew for highly important legal purposes during their life in Israel. [Were I ever to emigrate to Israel, I would be considered a Jew for purposes of immigration, and "NOT a Jew" for the legal practicalities of my life there, because my conversion, while acceptable for immigration purposes, would not be considered valid for living-as-a-Jewish-citizen purposes (marriage, divorce, burial, etc.).

As an American, I agree totally and completely that discrimination is wrong.

As a [hypothetical] Israeli, I realize that Israel does not yet possess the critical mass of secure safety necessary to allow the American kind of total luxury when it comes to applying certain general principles to people's daily lives.

In real life, in the real Israel as it exists today, there is considerable NON-discrimination in areas which used to be discriminatory not very long ago. Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims serve together in the IDF (though they are not conscripted, as Jewish Israelis are; those who serve, volunteer for their service), and these non-Jewish Israeli citizens work with, and live with, Israelis as a normal part of their lives. There are citizen groups which work for inclusiveness, and the goals of these groups are continually being expanded as improvements take place "on the ground."

Israel is a Middle Eastern country, surrounded by Middle Eastern countries--countries which are often led by leaders who reflect "less than ideal" ideas of what a leader, and a leader's country, "should be." If you live in the north of Israel, every single night you go to sleep you know that you could be killed by a rocket before the sun next comes up. It hasn't happened lately, but it COULD happen at any time--and it is always, somewhere, in people's minds.

I disagree with many of the things which go on in Israeli culture (much as I did in fact disagree with the things which went on in American culture prior to the Civil Rights movement--and many of those American "things" involved people I am blood-related to in some way).

We Americans are still trying to "do it right," right here in the United States--and we are still continuing to miss the mark in important ways, and sometimes in huge ways which will haunt our ongoing history forever.

Israel is a young country (seventy-one years old this year), and it is continues to develop and evolve (mostly in good ways). [In 1847, seventy-one years after the founding of the USA, we also still had a ways to go in our own cultural development--we Americans, as a group, are not the same people now as we were in 1847.]

To attempt to apply to Israel the American kind of understanding of non-discrimination, as demanded in the article which led off this thread, is to not only expect a frequently unrealistic and higher standard from Israel than has been applied to the United States--but to give a complete pass to what American failings in the areas of discrimination clearly exist right now, as I type this.

I know the person who wrote this article thinks they are very clever to have "figured it all out" about exactly what is wrong with Israel (and Israelis), but their vision is impaired to such an extent that they are unable to "see" not only what are clearly improved, and improving, facts-on-the-ground in Israel as of July, 2019--they also cannot "see," or choose to ignore (as if the problems did not exist), what similar problems we Americans are presently dealing with here, too.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2019 05:33PM by Tevai.

I understood the article to mean that the very existence of a Jewish state is discriminatory. Never mind that a Palestinian state was created at the same time and would exist now if the surrounding Muslim states, which apparently are not discriminatory,hadn't gone to war with Israel and if that war hadn't ended with a cease fire and not a treaty. Never mind that Israel does have religious freedom and many non Jewish citizens. Nazareth which is a large city is made up a!most exclusively of Arabs who are also citizens.I do think there should be Palestinian state ,but that doesn't mean Israel should cease to exist. Good response.

Again, there is a LOT going on here that treats Palestinian Arabs differently from Israeli Jews and in fact many other ethnicities. I don't think it is racism, but it most certainly is the set of presumptions that inform traditional Christianity and Mormonism and it assuredly does not treat the Palestinian Arabs as equal in status to Israelis.


----------------------
> Never mind that a Palestinian state was created at
> the same time

The UN decided to create Israeli and Palestinian states and proposed two ways to do that. The Palestinians rejected both plans and the UN, under pressure from Israel and its allies, decided to go ahead anyway. Was that decision "legitimate?" Perhaps in a Third World sort of way in which the wishes of the locals are not considered--the Israelis counting as First World peoples whose views were taken seriously, but not the Palestinians. Even the Truman Administration thought the deal unfair and did not endorse it until after the Soviet Union recognized Israel and Washington felt it necessary to do the same lest Moscow gain a foothold there.

The Palestinians' wishes were never taken seriously. If one values the notion of self-determination, what happened in 1947-1948 was unfair.


------------------
> and would exist now if the
> surrounding Muslim states, which apparently are
> not discriminatory,hadn't gone to war with Israel
> and if that war hadn't ended with a cease fire and
> not a treaty.

What exactly is this saying? That the actions of other states; the failures of those states to endorse a UN deal foisted on Palestine and the failure of those states to defeat Israel militarily meant that the Palestinians lost their rights to self-determination? That makes no sense. It punishes the Palestinians for the sins of other peoples and treats them as morally identical to--and hence culpable for the actions of--the broader Arab world. That refusal to treat the Palestinians as a distinct people with independent rights and responsibilities demonstrates a blatant condescension towards them.


-----------------
> Never mind that Israel does have
> religious freedom and many non Jewish citizens.

That fact does not obviate the human rights of the Palestinians.


-------------
> Nazareth which is a large city is made up a!most
> exclusively of Arabs who are also citizens.

Yes, and the standard of living in Nazareth is much lower than in the Jewish areas of Israel. The situation there and in other Arab areas, with their relatively heavy police presence and scant infrastructure and social services, is not impressive. And even if the Arabs enjoyed full equality within the Israeli state, that would still not vitiate their rights to self-determination.


---------------
> I do
> think there should be Palestinian state ,but that
> doesn't mean Israel should cease to exist. Good
> response.

Of course Israel should exist. There must be guarantees of the security and independence of that country. It was born in dubious circumstances and has a history that is in many ways lousy, but people are people and hence deserve the same rights as everyone else. But the same is true of Palestine. Just because they were relatively uneducated and backward and lacked European and American connections in the 1930s and 1940s does not mean their express needs and wishes should have been overruled by the UN. Nor do the moral and strategic blunders of other Arab states negate the rights of the Palestinian Arabs.


-------------
Christianity and Mormonism treat Palestine as enjoying divine favor and serving a divine mission. In that vision the Arabs are interlopers who must be displaced so the will of God can unfold. Palestinian Arabs are therefore not entitled to the same legal and moral rights as their Jewish compatriots (for compatriots they perforce are).

This state of affairs makes no sense if one applies strictly secular principles. That people who are no longer fully committed Christians or Mormons, or who have left those faith traditions entirely, continue to adhere to Bible-based political notions indicates the degree to which the Christian worldview persists even in secular culture.

F.Y.I. As a matter of fact, not opinion, "Palestine is not recognized as a state by Israel, the United States, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the European Union, among others.
International recognition of the State of Palestine - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine

Likewise, "Thirty UN member states do not recognize Israel. These include 17 of the 22 members of the Arab League: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
Foreign relations of Israel - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel

It remains a divided question but the country of Israel will not be split down the middle without a heavy cost it cannot afford to pay.

I'm wondering why international recognition is relevant.

I mean, sure, as a geopolitical matter it is important. Going against the international community is a practically difficult thing to do. But that is an amoral consideration, not a moral one.

How, for instance, would you apply the recognition pattern to China? Is the Chinese suppression of Tibet acceptable because it bolsters the security of the PRC? How about Taiwan? Does almost universal recognition of Beijing's sovereignty over Taiwan mean that that insular people should not be able to choose their own government?

And contemporary events in Hong Kong: what is your view of that? China is recognized as the sovereign government of Hong Kong and its agents are taking away the liberties of the people of that island. They have taken to the streets in protest and pro-Chinese gangs are attacking the democracy marchers. Is that okay in your book or do you object? Because in both Hong Kong and Palestine, you have a people whose rights the international community has chosen to overrule in the interests of preserving comity with a regional great power.

Is that okay with you?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2019 03:43PM by Lot's Wife.

L'sW is right -- this is water.

In his famous commencement speech, David Foster Wallace pointed out that being aware of the underlying principles of one's society is like asking a fish to be aware of water. It's all around us, what we breathe, all we have ever known.

So his mantra in trying to raise people's consciousness of what drives them, of the huge faults in our world is -- this is water. This is water. This is water. It is useful in recognizing systemic racism, systemic misogyny, nationalism, ethnocentrism. For Mormons, the water is deceit and twisted realities.

Our attitudes toward Israel, the Mideast, Arabs, Muslims, Jews and their connection to Christianity are -- water. We breathe it, we swim in it, it's all we have ever known. Those attitudes are all over this thread. And it can be difficult to step outside of them to see the jaw-dropping more objective reality. It is difficult for a fish to be aware of water -- even when it is poisonous.

Israel is that over-used, misused word -- unique. One of a kind. Never before in history has a nation been created quite this way. Never before have we had a governing body like the U.N. After WWII, a lot of countries got carved up arbitrarily and much imbalance, unhappiness, and violence resulted. Many countries were given to super powers as spoils of war without the people being consulted. And THAT is history -- and has happened forever. Not saying it is or was right -- just that it was not unusual.

But let it sink in how *unique* Israel is. It can be difficult to grasp. By fiat from a governing body where the Mideast was underrepresented and misrepresented, a nation was just carved out -- where no such nation had existed, and people who did not speak the languages of the region, people who were foreign to everything in those surroundings and who viewed their new neighbors with hostility were plopped down -- mostly Europeans, mostly Russians plopped down in the desert with the most tenuous reasons given for this extraordinary measure. I think one poster innocently stumbled on to it -- it gave the West -- which looks at the East as the other in the most stereotypical, negative light imaginable -- an ally in the region -- which just happens to be the gateway to oil -- NOT THAT THAT MATTERS. I am sure you would all be cool if Russia just managed to work through the U.N. to create a new nation in the Nevada desert and sent us their despised ethnic minorities. (Fifty percent of Russians think the minorities should be expelled.) And then said, "They just aren't working out here and need a homeland. And this has NOTHING to do with our efforts to take over the U.S. Honest!" Although even that is not quite a perfect parallel, I admit. Nor is Libya, that failed effort of the U.S. to send those of African descent back to Africa -- although it seems to me blacks in this country are as much in need of a homeland where they can be safe as the Jews were. It wouldn't even be quite the same if the U.N. decided that the homeland of the Dine is the Great Basin and calmly divied up the land between them and the current inhabitants -- although it would actually a bit more justified in my opinion. I wonder how many pro-Israeli poster we would lose if someone told them their house needed to come down so the Dine could build a wall to keep us white folk in our place.

I think we need to become of the water of how Israel came into being.

Then -- yes -- Israel discriminates. Period. Israel's immigration policy is -- yes -- discriminatory. There is no other word for it -- unless you want to cede the meaning of the word. People of Jewish descent from all over the world can move to Israel, no matter how long their family has been established in other countries -- yet Palestinians, who were born there, whose families have lived there since time immemorial, who flee the violence or leave to find work in a less discriminatory environment are NOT free to return, do NOT have a homeland that must take them back. It is the definition of discrimination.

Certain arguments carry no weight with me to persuade me this is NOT discrimination. Those include college classes, reading, teaching experiences, and travel to Israel. Those are all very interesting -- but do not change the textbook definition of discrimination or that this policy fits it like a glove.

When I travel I, too, am interested in what Uber drivers, bartenders, tour bus guides, checkers, and waiters have to say. It has its own charm and represents a certain reality. I also take it with about a pound of salt. Tour guides very profession is to convince travelers their country is a safe and attractive destination. And probably TRAVELERS to the Mideast -- where their money is a huge chunk of the economy -- ARE probably safe enough. Hell, tourist in *Chicago* are safe enough. In both cases it is the residents I worry about. In Israel it is the Palestinian children who fall into the hands of the Israeli police that I worry about. It's that a Palestinian protester was recently killed by police I worry about.

The article I linked did conclude that Israel does not have a right to exist -- and I am not completely convinced that is true. I stand more with Jewish Voices for Peace and maintain that the specialness of Israel does not excuse it from honoring human rights.

This is clipped from their current homepage: "Jewish Voice for Peace is organizing a letter from Jewish leaders and community members in support of the “Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act” (H.R. 2407). This legislation would prohibit any of the $3.8 billion in military aid the U.S. grants annually to Israel from being used to support the mistreatment of Palestinian children in Israeli military detention."

In fact, the problems of Israel, however invisible to someone in a tour group, chillingly echo both our own -- and in a deep irony, those of Jews. Jailed children deprived of human rights? Building walls to isolate "the undesirables" from the rest of the community? You mean -- like -- herding them into a ghetto?

I have no doubt that there are many instances of Israelis and Palestinians getting along -- I know of many instances of blacks and whites in my own country getting along just fine. None of that erases -- on either side -- the failure of both countries to achieve true equality, human rights, and freedom -- for all.

Nicely delineated.

But... The Bible!!!!

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nor is Libya, that failed effort of the
> U.S. to send those of African descent back to
> Africa

Gentle correction: The country you are referring to is Liberia (on the west coast of Africa)....not Libya (an Arab country in the northeast of Africa).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2019 03:57PM by Tevai.

I agree, unsurprisingly, with a lot of this.

I would add, though, or perhaps reiterate, my conviction that however Israel came into existence it most certainly has a right to exist. That right may not be historical or legal but it inheres in the humanity of the people who live there.

For better or worse, we are stuck with the present delineation of peoples and states. What is needed is marginal adjustments that recognize the rights of all people who are in Palestine and form the basis for a lasting peace. That will, in practical terms, be exceedingly difficult to achieve given that so many states--Arab, Iranian, Russian, European, American--have reasons for opposing critical elements of a settlement.

Religion needs ideally to be taken out of the picture. It has divided the residents of Palestine/Israel and it blinds hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims to the facts on the ground. Correct policy derives from people and their interests, not from ancient mythologies.

I have a wish for the problem. I'm frustrated and disgusted with this issue. Swearing warning!

Effing get along! These two groups are so darn tribal it's disgusting. None of the people there were alive thousands of years ago to hold such a grudge, except for the fact they are taught to be so tribal (you didn't come from right family to live here!) because our Book says so!

I wish they could get over themselves and share the area like responsible modern people who don't discriminate. All this going on for thousands of years and all the money we have had to pour into it is ridiculous. Enough already. Lose the tribal shit!

OK, I'm delusional. These groups have ZERO desire to stop their tribal BS. They are worse than many groups, IMO. I know the tribal thing is a human behavior that isn't going away. It's disappointing that in this day and age people can't see past this and learn to stop acting like their genes and culture are so damn special and entitled.

I have hope in Tevai's prediction that it will be solved by eventually inbreeding, but unless they ditch their extreme tribal-ish views, they will fight it as long as possible.

It doesn't help when Christians need the Israel to fulfill their own delusions.

Stupid humans.

>
> Stupid humans.
>

And their stupid beliefs, taught to them by their parents and passed on to the next generation, etc., etc.


What a shame the US didn't make the Tribe of Judah an offer they couldn't refuse: Florida.

Yeah, give the Jews Florida, which they heavily populated every winter already, in exchange for the Jews ceding their biblical homeland to the Arabs already living there. It makes sense to me that ghawd would have okayed that deal! Hindsight...

Instead we have about 6,600,000 Jews (75% of Israel's population) surrounded by 16 Arab countries with about 405 million people, 60% of whom are Moslem. So about 36 Muslims for each Jew. And even at 18 to 1, assuming that only half the Arab population is onboard with wiping out Israel, those are not good odds.

I grew up admiring Israel and it's Jewish heroes. Two writers profoundly influenced me, Leon Uris and the recently deceased Herman Wouk.

Leon Uris wrote one novel from the viewpoint of an Israeli Arab, The Haj. Good read...


It is literally unthinkable for a Christian to imagine the demise of the State of Israel. But then think "The Princess Bride": Vizzini said "inconceivable!!" five times and then keeled over dead.

If Vegas bookmakers would take bets on the existence of Israel in ten years, what odds would be posted?

I likely won't be alive in ten years (my warranty runs out next year) so it's not a bet I'm interested in. But I still enjoy trying to appreciate facts. Unruly beasts they are.

Beliefs are nicer because they can be house-broken.

Love

I was in Israel in October. We had a Palestinian guide who said that things are not as bad there as Americans think. He complained about some Israeli policies and did some complaining on other issues,but also said that Arabs and Jews work together peacefully for the most part.While I was there, there was a murder at the U and a synagogue massacre. Both were in the US. Israel was safe on the other hand. BTW, most Israelis are secular and There are Arab and Christians who are citizens.If course there are problems too before someone claims I.said otherwise

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was in Israel in October. We had a Palestinian
> guide who said that things are not as bad there as
> Americans think. He complained about some Israeli
> policies and did some complaining on other
> issues,but also said that Arabs and Jews work
> together peacefully for the most part.While I was
> there, there was a murder at the U and a
> synagogue massacre. Both were in the US. Israel
> was safe on the other hand. BTW, most Israelis are
> secular and There are Arab and Christians who are
> citizens.If course there are problems too before
> someone claims I.said otherwise

Thank you, bona dea.

I appreciate you posting this.

You are very welcome and thanks for your input.

I have been lurking on this thread but I would like to add a footnote.

Christian =/= Zionist.

Palestinian nationalism originates among the Christian Arabs who were more exposed to western ideas than their Muslim counterparts.

There are also Christians who object to Israel on some of the grounds above, and also those who like certain anti-Zionist Jews believe that Israel must be restored by God rather than human efforts.

Conversely, I have heard many secular arguments for Israel - protection from anti-Semitism, a friendly power in the Middle East etc.

There are various Christian sects and individuals who believe in Replacement Theology. White nationalists are but one such group/clan who believe they and others like them supercede the Jews and the OT teachings. I know from first hand experience dealing with some of these people on some social sites where they propagate their material (Christian sites.)

Messianics believe that the Gentiles are 'grafted in' to the Jewish covenant if they choose to be that is. But they believe that Christ came to fulfill the covenants of the OT and not to replace the former gospel in contrast to the Replacement Theologians who believe the NT did away with the former.

Regardless, the Messianics and Replacement Theologists share one vision in common: that the End Times are near, and the destruction of Jerusalem to prepare for the second coming of the Messiah aka return of Jesus to the holy capitol of Israel.

They fervently wait and get ready for that appointed hour, collecting souls and donations in anticipation of the great event. Mostly though, donations to support the crew, rabbis, their wives, families and staff of the ministries throughout Israel and the western world where they televangelize and have their ministries.

They are nonetheless, staunch supporters for, not against Israel. In that sense they ally and stand with Israel. Israel appreciates the support they endeavor to bring to helping its poorest and neediest people, and to bring attention to the suffering of some of its most vulnerable. And in standing with Israel against her enemies who would like nothing less than to see Israel disappear from the face of the earth. There is that element as well that polite society chooses to ignore. Israel is surrounded by hostile forces that seek its destruction. It doesn't sleep or slumber. That's why the IDF is so strong and why Israel's children are conscripted into the army at the age of 18, to protect and serve.

I was all for supporting some of those Jewish/Christian ministries myself until I started investigating their annual reports. Some of their CEO's take in on average between $400,000-$800,000 annually (that's an old assessment.) They live like kings while saying they're helping the poor. So I figure if they're living so well then they don't need my donations. I give to those where I believe it will do the most good. Also where I believe my donation makes it to the charity itself and not the fundraiser!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2019 09:41AM by Amyjo.