Columns Jeffrey Salkin: Martini Judaism Opinion

Mike Pence, Zionist thinker

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence addresses the Knesset, Israeli Parliament, in Jerusalem January 22, 2018. REUTERS/Ariel Schalit/Pool

I’m going to say something that I’ve never said before.

Mike Pence was right.

Vice President Mike Pence spoke at the Knesset in Jerusalem, and he spoke well. Despite the cynicism and suspicion that many Jews have of Christian Zionism (and, on some points, I count myself among the critics), Pence uttered some fundamental truths – truths that most American Jews would have to struggle to refute.

To wit:

The people of the United States have always held a special affection and admiration for the People of the Book. In the story of the Jews, we’ve always seen the story of America. It is the story of Exodus, a journey from persecution to freedom, a story that shows the power of faith and the promise of hope.

Pence was absolutely right. Look at American history. As Shalom Goldman has written, there has been a long standing relationship between the United States, and the story of the Jews.

The Pilgrims believed themselves to be like the ancient Israelites.

  • The English monarchy was like Pharaoh.
  • The Atlantic Ocean was like the Red Sea (which the Israelites cross, in this week’s Torah portion).
  • New England was like the land of Israel; the mythological American “city on a hill” was intended to be nothing less than an evocation of Jerusalem.

There were losers in this drama, however. If the English settlers were the Israelites, someone had to play the role of the displaced, conquered Canaanites. That would be the American Indians – with disastrous, historically tragic results.

Therefore, let us be cautious and humble in evoking America as “the new Israel.” Yes, there is grandeur in that definition. There is also a kind of national hubris that can easily migrate into arrogance. Arrogance, in this narrative, always has victims.

And, more:

The US is proud to stand with Israel and her people, as allies and cherished friends. And so we will pray for the peace of Jerusalem, that those who love you be secure, that there be peace within your walls and security in your citadels. And we will work and strive for that brighter future, so everyone who calls this ancient land home shall sit under their vine and fig tree, and none shall make them afraid.

Mike Pence knows his Hebrew Bible. He began by citing Psalms (“pray for the peace of Jerusalem”), and then walked over into the prophet Micah (“…under their vine and fig tree.”)

Pence was hardly the first American political leader to use that prophetic quote.

George Washington had a particular affection for it. He referred to it in writing more than fifty times – first, as his hope for the future contentment of the soldiers who had fought in the Revolution, and second, as his own hope for a comfortable life at his beloved Mount Vernon.

The United States shares a biblical legacy with the state of Israel. For if you can’t quote Jewish texts in the Knesset, where can you quote them?

And, more:

As I stand in Abraham’s Promised Land, I believe that all who cherish freedom and seek a brighter future should cast their eyes here and marvel at what they behold…How unlikely is Israel’s birth; how more unlikely is her survival.

Consider the words of the late Canadian poet, A.M. Klein (quoted by my friend, Gil Troy, in his upcoming The Zionist Ideas):

Twigs and branches that had been dry and sapless for generations, for millennia, now budded, blossomed—and with new flowers. It was as if I was spectator to the healing of torn flesh, or heard a broken bone come together, set and grow again. . . .Little David had slain Goliath. The miracle had again been repeated; against great odds, the little struggling state had withstood the onslaught of combined might. . . .

Back to Mike Pence.

Tomorrow, when I stand with my wife Karen at Yad Vashem to honor the six million Jewish martyrs of the Holocaust, we will marvel at the faith and resilience of your people, who just three years after walking in the shadow of death, rose up from the ashes to resurrect yourselves, to reclaim a Jewish future and rebuild the Jewish State.

Pence was right. One interpretation of the meaning of the state of Israel, though far from being the only interpretation, is that it represents the resurrection of the Jewish people out of the ashes of the Shoah. Israel represents the ability of the Jewish people to once again control its own destiny.

Nothing expresses that sense of resurrection more than the Hebrew language. Whenever I go to services in Jerusalem, I inevitably find myself sitting close to the window. With one ear, I hear the chanting of the ancient liturgical Hebrew. With my other ear, I hear the children in the playground, yelling at each other in modern Hebrew. It is a stereophonic encounter with modern Judaism.

Isn’t that what the prophet Zechariah was talking about?

Thus said the LORD of Hosts: There shall yet be old men and women in the squares of Jerusalem, each with staff in hand because of their great age. And the squares of the city shall be crowded with boys and girls playing in the squares.


Finally, Vice President Pence mentioned Israel’s upcoming seventieth anniversary, and in so doing, said the Shehecyanu prayer, that Jews recite at momentous occasions.

As anyone who has read my columns knows, I am not a fan of this administration.

But, let’s give credit where credit is due.

Mike Pence spoke well, and he spoke the truth, in Jerusalem.

Acknowledging that is also a mitzvah.

It is hakarat ha-tov, mentioning the good that people do.

About the author

Jeffrey Salkin

Rabbi Jeffrey K. Salkin is the spiritual leader of Temple Solel in Hollywood, Fla., and the author of numerous books on Jewish spirituality and ethics, published by Jewish Lights Publishing and Jewish Publication Society.


Click here to post a comment

  • Nonsense, good speech writers, Mike Pence is nothing more than Trump’s cash connection to the Koch brothers; you would really take seriously a man who says smoking doesn’t kill people…

  • The pilgrims ≠ the American people. The pilgrims were religious zealots who left Europe to create a patriarchal, homicidal theocracy. They do not represent the Amertican ideal of liberty and justice for _all_.

  • The most important issue isn’t how Americans feel about the nation of Israel, it is about how Zionists feel about equality. Please note here that the Palestinians are not mentioned in the above article as if they don’t exist.

    And if we make comparisons with the Pilgrims, note how in an effort to act like OT Israel, the Pilgrims treated Native Americans as if they did not count.

  • Unlike Mike Pence and other backhanded Philo Semites, I suspect most Zionists support a Two (Three?) State solution, but not one which cedes East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

    The two Israeli Prime Ministers with the most violent political background (admitted terrorists) we’re the ones who made the most efforts at peaceful resolution with neighbors. (Begin, Rabin).

    The US can’t do anything more than get in the way here. Clinton tried to rush the Oslo Accords and it blew up in his face. GW Bush enabled efforts to dispossess Palestinians from land and resources.

    The major factor in driving peace right now is the lack of interest in the Arab world with the Palestinians. The effort to wipe out Israel has been largely abandoned. The Saudi/Iran conflict has taken precedence.

  • Spuddie,
    We disagree on the major factor. Israel has not been interested in a just peace because there is more land to take. The US government sees Israel as a regional enforcer–that is true for both the Dems and the Repubs. If you put the ’67 border as a negotiating starting point with allowances for mutually agreed on changes, you’ll find a historic interest in peace by the Palestinians.

    Two things are for sure here. None of us know what it has been like for Jews over the centuries to live in a land where you are hated because of your religion and ethnicity. And none of us know what it is like to live as a Palestinian in the Occupied territories. Certainly there are huge discrepancies between the degree and duration of suffering for both people. But the suffering experienced by the Palestinians is severe and must stop.

  • “’67 Border” is a nonsense outsiders to the situation refer to. It’s not workable for either side and a code phrase for “don’t take me seriously”. Both Palestinians and Israelis have demographically spilled out over such borders making it arbitrary and useless to either party. Phony Arab League peace deals would use it to pretend to offer a deal but one nobody could ever take.

    Any real deal requires close negotiation and analysis from both parties. Oslo Accords were scorched by two outside forces. A Palestinian Civil War under the surface and US meddling to rush a conclusion which probably would have happened organically like peace with Jordan.

  • Spuddie,
    The ’67 borders have always been the starting point from the Palestinian perspective. I twas the starting point for Hamas’s willingness to recognize Israel in both 2006 and 2008. The ’67 borders worked prior to the 6-day war. It was out of opportunism that the ’67 borders became increasingly expanded.

  • Not really. Its been a starting point for the Arab League, and the right of return. Poison pill provisions from the outset.

    When actual negotiations were being done between Israel and Palestinians, that was never a consideration for either party. It was simply a way to walk away from the table and pretend like the other side rejected peace.

    Especially since even those borders were ones created by contemporary conquest. Because the Arab Legion divided the city in 1948 and it was part of Jordan. There is no more a rightful claim for the 1967 borders than there are for those in 1948. It has nothing to do with exigencies on either side.

    “he ’67 borders worked prior to the 6-day war.”

    Really? Where do you get this nonsense from? Fedayeen terror attacks across those borders were constant as were Jordanian shelling attacks. More importantly the holiest Jewish site in Jerusalem was essentially a free fire zone.

    “Palestinian” didn’t exist until after 1967. Prior to that the territory was Jordan and a little bit of Egypt. Israel even offered to give Egypt the Gaza strip back and it was refused. The one reason Jordan is not considered a Palestinian state is because they tried to overthrow King Hussein and failed violently. (See Black September). More Palestinians were killed in one month by Jordan than Israel has done in 50 years.

    Moreover what you call “opportunism” was the hardest fought battle in the 6 Day War. The plan to unite the city was there from the moment it was first divided.

    Frankly I would have much more sympathy for the Palestinians if they could break from either Foreign sponsored theocratic leaders in Gaza or the Kleptocrat in the West Bank. Neither faction has any intention of governing and ruling their people. Not when foreign money keeps coming in and they can blame their problems on others. Siege mentality works great for Fatah and Hamas, not so much for those under their care.

  • Spuddie,
    The ’67 borders has been the starting point for the Palestinians, including Hamas. It has always been part of the Palestinian position.

    Finally, the ’67 borders worked before the 6’day war. You have to stop trying to totally denounce all views but your own.

    And no, the Palestinian existed prior to ’67. And what I called opportunism was the fact that Israel stated a war they didn’t need to but saw an opportunity in fighting that war.

  • By all means ignore the prior history. Nobody considered the borders workable, not Israel nor the Palestinians/Arab League backers. Prior to 1967 it was not even a demilitarized zone. It was an area of constant conflict. During the Oslo Accords, nobody even considered it as a negotiation point. Not even the Palestinians.

    “Finally, the ’67 borders worked before the 6’day war. You have to stop trying to totally denounce all views but your own.”

    Then stop saying ridiculous things that flies in the face of all prior facts and history on the subject. This is one of them. A statement completely at odds with the known history of the area. This is not about other views, this is about representation of facts. Something you are not doing remotely correctly.

    “Israel stated a war they didn’t need to but saw an opportunity in fighting that war.”

    Again, another ridiculous ahistorical statement. One that ignores the huge buildup of forces along Israel’s borders with Egypt, Jordan and Syria prior to the conflict. Israel started a war before its neighbors could.

  • Spuddie,
    I am speaking of the prior history. And the borders were workable.

    But there is something else, I am tired of being insulted by each time I disagree with you. You can keep your comments for other people. That you insult others so easily is not a good reflection on you.

  • Not in any way which is well informed. Even the most cursory search on the subject from objective sources demonstrates how incorrect you are.

    There were numerous cross border fights and a massive military buildup by Egypt, Syria and Jordan leading up to the war.

    Those “workable borders” were rife with terrorist attacks across it.

    You disagree with me on facts that are pretty easy to look up from a variety of sources. You can get annoyed all you want, but you are just plain wrong on the basic facts and assumptions here.

  • Spuddie,
    No more comments. I am more informed than you give credit for. And I wouldn’t rely on wikipedia for my information there. I’ve been reading about the history of the area for a while.

    Anytime there is a disagreement, you become very insulting and I I am tired of it. I will no longer respond to you.

  • Wikipedia just shows how ubiquitous the information here is. Your average History or Discovery Channel program on the subject shows how incorrect you are.

    This is not even a difference of perspective from two sides of a conflict. Both Arab and Israeli accounts talk of military buildup by Egypt, Jordan and Syria prior to the conflict, cross border raids in the West Bank and Jerusalem literally divided by hostile nations.

    This is not a difference of opinion. It’s not even a difference of perspective on facts, this is just a matter of being correct here.

    The whole idea that the 1967 borders were peaceful or even viable at the time has no basis in fact. I would love to see where you got that from out of curiosity.

  • But the Exodus did not happen making his speech moot. Basically, Judaism as with all religions are cons invented by scribes well-versed in writing fiction.

  • Spuddie,
    I taught college. And I would never accept wikipedia to be used as a reference in any paper. In addition, your take on wikipedia is not based on a firm conclusion.

    I am not answering any more of your comments. And, btw, Palestinian nationalism had a revival with the beginning of the British Mandate and has been the dream since then.

    Goodbye and take care. It is your behavior that is moving me to end conversation with you.

  • Evidently the subject taught wasn’t modern history of the Middle East or Military History. This is pretty basic stuff.

    There is far more on the subject besides Wikipedia. In an online discussion it is perfectly acceptable. In light of the lack of rebuttal sources provided to support your assertions, it is still the only factual source brought to the table here. If you think that source is unreliable, feel free to link to your own. It would have saved us a lot of nonsense if you had something so objectively trustworthy.

    “btw, Palestinian nationalism had a revival with the beginning of the British Mandate and has been the dream since then”

    Palestinians didn’t exist as a distinct people until after 1967. Prior to that they were simply Arabs. From 1948-67 they were Jordanian and Egyptian subjects.

    Palestinian nationalism is largely sabotaged by their own efforts. They have been used as proxy forces for both the Arab League and Iran, tried to take over Jordan, overstayed their welcome in Lebanon, used suicide bombers as a negotiation tool in 1997, fratricidal conflict in 2003, and having theocratic and kleptocrats as their leaders.

    I can think of no other group so badly abused by their own leaders and foreign supporters. The upside is the foreign support of “the armed struggle” has dried up. Palestinians (in the West Bank) can assert their actual interests for the first time in generations.

  • Spuddie,
    This will be my last note. I had to respond one more time though because your first statement shows that either you don’t fully read what I write or that you have no clue about what you are talking about. If I am referring to the British Mandate, I am referring to a time period that started after Modern Zionism started. Modern Zionism as a movement started in the 1800s. The British Mandate started after WW I.

    Take care

  • And let us not forget that as well, they executed a number of Quakers. Too bad American history does not teach the truth about the Puritans and pilgrims.

  • I know what you are talking about. But it encompassed the entire Arab world, not just Palestine during that period and led to a number of conflicts with the British and French who divided up the Middle East. Its relevance is tempered by the fact that Palestinian nationalism was pretty much a byword for the destruction of Israel until only about 20 years ago.

  • The USA, like Israel, is “One Nation under God.” VP Pence demonstrated that clearly and correctly. PM Netanyahu also makes that fact clear about Israel. God is coming soon to the earth, and all who advocate for love and peace will be spared. All sinners will be destroyed. Peace will reign for a 1000 years. Wait for it. Believe it. It’s coming!! SHALOM

  • Spuddie,
    You are not being straight forward here. If you knew what you were talking about, you would realize that Palestinian Nationalism is no identical with the Arab World and that you would not confuse the British Mandate with ancient times since there was the Ottoman Empire prior to the British Mandate. The French were never involved in Palestine though they were involved in parts of the Arab region. But if you knew what you were talking about, you would not conflate the Arab World with Palestinian Nationalism. The ’67 war contained no threat from the Palestinians. And Resolution #242 required recognition of Israel, which is included in the recognition of all states, but there was no recognition of any Palestine state or the right of return.

    It was Israel that insisted that negotiations be done with the Arab states and Syria disagreed. But that put the Palestinians in the middle and gave an excuse for taking land because enlarging its borders was the goal of the war. BTW, Israeli leaders admitted that the war was not necessary despite the verbal threats being made by Arab leaders. In fact, Egypt’s forces were in defensive positions when the war started. And Arab discontent with Israel started to rise with the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel and newly conquered territories all of which occurred in the late 1940s. That resulted a war and in the expulsion of Jewish residents from Arab states like Iraq. On a more gradual basis, it led to the reduction of the Jewish population in Iran, which, btw, is not an Arab state. However, Iran once had the highest population of Jews in the region second to Israel.

    Palestinian antagonism toward Israel started much earlier,much earlier than Jewish statehood, when they realized that some Zionists, there were multiple forms of Zionism earlier on, took the land with the intention of expelling the Palestinians. That was in Theodore Herzl’s diary, in fact, even though he never expressed those views publicly. Eventually, the Palestinians responded with violence and Israel returned the favor against both the Palestinians and the British. In fact, 2 former Israeli PMs fought in Israeli terrorist gangs. But there was no threat that the Palestinians posed on Israel despite the purpose of the founding of the PLO. And you might want to include that Israel did not recognize the right of the Palestinians toward statehood or any other rights until beginning with 1993 and Oslo. But that recognition has been only formal since Israel has been confiscating land since the beginning of Modern Zionism.

    Each of one of your last notes shows an ignorance the belies your claim to know the conflict and speak down to anyone who disagrees.

  • Palestinian Nationalism has been co-opted by outside forces from its inception. Once Palestinians were considered a separate and distinct group from Arabs in general (After 1967). Palestinian nationalism outside of the general Arab nationalist context doesn’t go back as far as you are claiming.

    “The ’67 war contained no threat from the Palestinians.”

    Palestinians didn’t exist as a group back then. East Jerusalem was Jordanian territory. A hostile neighbor which did not have a peaceful border. Cross border raiding into Israel was fairly rife prior to the war.

    “gave an excuse for taking land because enlarging its borders was the goal of the war.”

    Public statements by Nasser and Assad and the military buildup among all of the neighboring states to Israel being something you are going to handwave as never happening despite numerous sources for it.

    “And Arab discontent with Israel started to rise with the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel and newly conquered territories all of which occurred in the late 1940s.”

    And an entire war waged to wipe out Israel in 1948-49 goes entirely unremarked. How convenient.

    “But there was no threat that the Palestinians posed on Israel despite the purpose of the founding of the PLO.”

    Other than rampant terrorism supported by Arab neighbors and acting as irregular forces in the employ of the Arab League’s efforts to attack Israel. Seriously? You want to pretend 25 years of constant terrorism and support in the last major war to wipe out Israel didn’t exist.

    “And you might want to include that Israel did not recognize the right of the Palestinians toward statehood or any other rights until beginning with 1993 and Oslo.”

    Of course not. Palestinian statehood goals previously involved the destruction of Israel. It was the stated goal of the PLO. It was the point of demanding right of return. It is why even the recognition of Israel was a point of contention until a generation ago (Hamas still won’t do that much).

    I would love if you cited a source for your assertions here. Your post is historical revisionism at its most blatant here.

  • And then there is this:

    “Nineteenth-century agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation “the insanest of all books”.[30] Thomas Jefferson omitted it along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he “considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.” [31]

    Martin Luther once “found it an offensive piece of work” and John Calvin “had grave doubts about its value.”[32]

  • Spuddie,
    Again, Palestinian Nationalism began with the British Mandate. Why did it begin with the British Mandate? It was not because of the French and only derivatively had to do with the British. It was because of the rule of the Ottoman Empire. And the Ottoman Empire did not include all Arab nations or population centers. They were recognized as their own group long before you said they were. And not to know that or recognize that isn’t bad, it just means that you had a lack of exposure to certain histories.

    But what was wrong was your boorish denouncement of any views outside of your own while you relied on Wikipedia for your resource. That is the real problem with your notes. Though I have answered back far more times than I care to, I won’t anymore.

  • Which covered the creation of the Arab State of Jordan. Palestinians as a distinct people separate from simply Arab didn’t exist prior to 1967. Somehow Palestinian nationalism did not extend to those living in Egypt or Jordan prior to the 6 Day War. Go figure.

    You made several statements which flew in the face of historical record. To the point where even something as basic as Wikipedia contradicted you. The idea the 1967 borders were peaceful or even viable is unsupported by historical record. Still wondering where you got that from.

    Also blithely ignoring much of the Palestinian counterproductive actions to blame Israel entirely show you are being selective in focus.

    I will put all my cards on the table. 1. The 1967 borders are a joke provisions. They were always unworkable. Israel will and has zero reason to cede Judaism’s holiest site to the Palestinians.

    2. The settlements must go. Period.

    3. A three state solution is the only viable answer here.

    4. What passes for leadership right now among Palestinians is a joke.

    5. BDS types and most foreign supporters of the Palestinians will ignore #4. Their input is entirely pointless.

  • East Jerusalem was part of Jordan after 1948. Jordanian forces defended it during the 6 Day war. Gaza was Egyptian territory. Israel even tried to give it back to them after the October War. Egypt refused.

    (Trans) Jordan was proposed as the Arab State to be created after the creation of Israel as part of UN agreement. The one the Arab world rejected in favor of trying to wipe Israel out at inception. The conflict which divided Jerusalem in the first place.

  • Spuddie,
    You’re cherry-picking your facts. Palestine consisted of more than just East Jerusalem. Palestinian nationalism included all of Palestine, And, as my last documented, there are distinctions between Jordanians and Palestinians. Those distinctions grew as the British Mandate continued. For you to say that only Jordanian nationalism arose after the Ottoman Empire is neither factually correct nor logically sound.

    And one more point, Palestinian Nationalism began over 25 years before East Jerusalem was in the hands of Jordan. So not only are you cherry-picking by location, you are not aware of when Palestinian Nationalism began and are cherry-picking by time. But that is you.

  • The West Bank was part of Jordan as well. Their military defended the lands involved. There was no Palestinian state prior to 1967. Somehow Palestinian nationalism never extended to addressing the countries who actually controlled their lands prior to Israeli occupation. Go figure.

  • Spuddie,
    You insist on missing the point. Palestinian nationalism existed throughout all of Palestine and before the West Bank was controlled byf Jordan. You cherry-pick facts in relation to both location and time. Thus you continue to ignore the distinctions between Palestinians and Jordanians that arise from dialects (what I have documented before), location, and circumstances.Thus, there is much information you are not acknowledging and yet you speak and act boorishly waiting for the world to catch up with your expertise.

  • “Palestinian nationalism existed throughout all of Palestine and before the West Bank was a part of Jordan.”

    But somehow didn’t come to attention even within the Arab World until after there was a ready supply of irregular soldiers who could be used to harass Israel as proxy forces. The situation was pretty messy and complicated until things quieted down after the end of the Cold War. Then for a brief period Palestinians were pawns in the more localized Arab/Iranian Cold War.

    As Palestinian Nationalism goes, it was a righteous mess from 1967-2003. Between attempts to overthrow Jordan, destabilizing Lebanon, fratricidal conflict, kleptocracy, theocracy, its really tough to find a group more difficult to sympathize with.

  • Spuddie,
    Whether it came to the attention of the Arab World outside of Palestine is not the issue. That it was very much a part of Palestine is the issue. Palestinian Nationalism began soon after freedom from the Ottoman Empire. And your attempt to reduce it a later time is merely an attempt to reduce sources of information on Palestine to that with which you are familiar.

    Wanted to add that you assume that your resources on the Arab World contains an exhaustive reporting on what went on in Palestine. Your faith in your Arab World sources are misplaced, I believe. And as such, your approach doesn’t amount to an objective inquiry of the subject.

  • It isn’t?

    Palestinians were used as proxy military forces for decades. The Arab World’s dealings with them are much harsher than Israel’s ever were. Outside involvement with Palestinian affairs has done a great deal of damage to the credibility of the Palestinian cause and given them leaders more beholden to foreign interests and money than their own people. The Palestinian civil war was caused by a conflict between which outside benefactor would be controlling them.

  • Spuddie,
    You want to continue this conversation forever despite being shown that you have both a faulty knowledge of Palestine’s history and a faulty method of gathering sources. Thus you continue to make claim after claim while forgetting the time period being focused on in our discussion. There were no proxy forces during the first couple of decades following the conquest of Palestine by British sources. And your insistence that the Arab World view provides an exhaustive view of what happened in Palestine would never be accepted in any legitimate study of the subject–neither would the reliance on Wikipedia and the insistence that Wikipedia contains a ‘ubiquitous’ view of that or any other subject.

    You have offered nothing new for the past few notes. So now is the time to say goodbye.

  • Jews have never followed what you call the “OT” literally, “Old Testament is an expression Jews never use. There are centuries of Midrash, Biblical commentaries, and Talmud that interpret what you call the “OT”. It’s very un-Jewish to be a literalist.

    Pence is not a Zionist. He wants a Jewish state with no Jews in it. Jews will either convert before the Second Coming or they will go straight to Hell duirng the Second coming. You don’t know antything about how “Zionist feel about equality.” You wrongly assume that Zionists are against equality, but you’re wrong.-

  • Hamas is antisemitic organization with a hatred of all Jews everywhere. They promote Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories involving Jews or Zionists. The exact 1967 borders obviously didn’t work or there wouldn’t have the a war in 1967.

  • Susan,
    What you describe the Jews as having is what many Christian denominations have today: traditions. We Christians call our traditions confessions and they are used, as the traditions of the Jews were used, to interpret the Scriptures. And whether and Old Testament teaching was taken literally or not depends on how the traditions interpreted a given Old Testament passage. In addition, I am simply going by how the New Testament reports on the actions of the Pharisees of Jesus’s day.

    In addition, my intended audience are those fellow Christians of mine who ascribe to the Dispensationalist school of eschatology. Pence appears to be a Dispensationalist. And Dispensationalists do think of themselves as Christian Zionists because of their support for the nation of Israel. If I were to speak to a broader audience than Dispensationalists or the person I have been conversing with on this webpage, I would hasten to add that there have been multiple forms of Zionism. Political Zionism is the one that seems to have overshadowed the rest, at least to this American Christian, because it is the form being followed by Israel’s governmental leaders. It is quite evident that Political Zionism reject equality, but that is not to say that all other forms of Zionism do the same.

    Let me know what you think with my response.

  • Susan,
    One can’t properly understand Hamas’s anti-semitism until one fully appreciates the context from which it comes. That is not to justify that anti-semitism, it is to say that the context of that anti-Semitism might show that the anti-Semitism is a reaction to some things that are unjust. And so if we want to target Hamas’s anti-Semitism, we should also want to target the abuses that Hamas is reacting to.

    The same goes with Holocaust Denial. That Palestinians and some Jews believe that the Holocaust has been used to justify the Occupation and the stealing of land by the Israeli government. That has moved some Palestinians to deny the Holocaust as a way of dealing how the government of Israel is treating the Palestinians. It is terribly wrong to deny the Holocaust, but we have to understand the context of those who do deny it.

    And, btw, both in 2006 and 2008 Hamas offered to recognize the state of Israel under certain conditions provided that they include a return to the ’67 border.

    Finally, what doesn’t advance the conversation here is for either of us to canonize one side and demonize the other. In addition, the ’67 borders didn’t necessitate the war. The war was one of opportunism that arose during the inflamatory rhetoric employed by all sides involved.

  • I’m not sure what you mean by “political Zionism.” I never supported Netanyahu or any of Israel’s current leaders. If I was Israeli I would have voted for Meretz. Modern Zionism is a secular movement. Hertzel was an assimliated non-religious reporter who covered the Dreyfus trial. Ater Dreyfus was declared guilty, the French assembled in the streets to scream “Death to the Jews”. Hertzel was left shattered by this. He came to believe that Jews needed their own state. Zionism was built on the need for refuge for a very vulnerable population.

    There are also more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Palestinian refugees from Israel. Can a Yemenite Jewish Zionist be racist?

    There is a literalist fundamentalist version of Christianity. That sort of fundamentalist idea just doesn’t exist in even the most Ultra-Orthodox Jews. The depiction of the Pharisees in the “New Testament” is completely inaccurate and distorted. The Pharisees were not villains nor were they pettyfogging hypocrites.

  • I don’t support the occupation and I do support a two-state solution. Hamas itself would claim that they hate Zionists or Israelis. That is just not true. They hate all Jews.

    Why should Israelis be willing to negotiate with Jew-haters? So Israel’s are just supposed to assume that if the occupation ends, the antisemitism will end too. That is a baseless assumption. Conspiracy theories are not logical. You’re the one demonizing Zionists. So don’t lecture me about that.

    Hamas rejects any Jewish claim to any part of Jerusalem. Jews would once again not be allowed to visit the Western Wall. Hams is not democratic. It killed it Palestiniain opponents in Gaza.

  • Susan,
    I am surprised that you are unclear of the meaning of political zionism or of its time period of origin since Theodore Herzl is recognized as its founder.

    I agree that Modern Zionism is a secular movement. It started in the 1800s and was born from horrific, long term Christian-based anti-Semitism in Europe. It rightly came to life even before the Holocaust. IT is that most of my fellow Christian believers don’t realize how horrible our ancestors treated the Jews.

  • Susan,
    Hamas’s hatred of any Jews, let alone all Jews, is wrong. But it is important to understand the context of that hatred. Just as it is important for my fellow American Christian Fundamentalists to understand why the LGBT community sees us a threat.

    Why should Israel be forced to negotiate with Jew-haters? First, not all Palestinians are Jew Haters. Second, occupying the land and stealing land and cutting of needed infrastructure resources are not signs of love. So some Palestinians might claim the right to return the favor of your question: why should they have to negotiate with Palestinian haters? The answer has less to do with hatred than with justice in terms of the land. But would an agreed upon negotiation with an enemy be preferable to endless hostilities?

    And, btw, the Palestinians have other groups besides Hamas and since in 2006 and 2008, they offered to conditionally recognize Israel, negotiations can offer hope. But realize that both sides have sabotged negotiations.

  • Jews usually call Herzl’s Zionism secular Zionism. Despite the current contempt for Zionism in parts of the left, many early Zionists were secular socialists. Most Israelis are either totally secular or very Orthodox. Unlike the US, the idea that there can be something in the middle or liberal Judaism is a new idea to israelis.

    I’ve posted this elsewhere, but someone whose names escapes me said that Christianity had a “theology of contempt for Judaism. If you grew up Christian anywhere in the world this affects you. It effects you even if you’re an atheist. Anti-Judaism is antisemitism ugly twin.

  • Susan,
    Thank you for the info on the term. What one should note is that Herzl’s vision of Zionism included the removal of those who were not Jews from the land. He didn’t speak of that publicly, but he did in his diary.

    You are correct about Christianity’s theology of contempt for Judaism. It came to this: European Christians did not believe in sharing society with others as equals. And though we now share society with more groups than before as equals, we still battle that sin. Such an attitude turns disagreement with Judaism into the kind of anti-Judaism you wrote.

  • I didn’t say all Palestinians are Jew haters, but antisemitism permeates the Arab and Muslim world. You can find The Protocals of the Elders of Zion, an antisemitic forgery created the the Czar’s secret police in the early 1900s, in any Muslim or Arab country. Abbas recently said that “Jews are good at faking and counterfeiting history” and that they have no historical connection to Jerusalem. He said all kinds of other ugyly thing about Zionists as well. So, I’m not sure how much the PA’s so-called recognition of Israel really means. I do realize that both sides have sabotaged negotiations. You don’t. You assume it’s all Israel’s fault.

  • Susan,
    In terms of Hamas’s offer, it was never a chance despite the pleas such made by some Israeli academics.

    What is needed is for each side to look closely at the context of what the other side says and does. That context is part of the story.

    BTW, I don’t assume it’s all Israel’s fault. But I do believe that the three nations most involved all need to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the ICC in order to settle things down. And once things settle down, we can have negotiations. Until then, the stronger side can do what it wants while the weaker side can continue to lash out with each side reacting to the other.

  • I’ve don’t trust the UN and I have my doubts about the ICC.

    Israel is a democracy the “weaker side” has the ability to influence Israeli public opinion, but they are more interested in hating Israelis and Zionists. It won’t end the occupaiton one day sooner, but they don’t seem to really care abut Palestinians even the Palestinian leaders. Even though I agree with them, I blame the Israeli left and peace movement too. I frequently roll my eyes and think no wonder the Left never gets anywhere in Israel now. They don’t seem to able to reach the average Israeli anymore.

  • Susan,
    Where the UN has failed is that its most powerful member doesn’t abide by the rules.

    The ICC is the only alternative. We need the rule of law and without all submitting to the ICC, we have the rule of force

    BTW, reaching the average person is not an indicator of the fairness of a group. The average American doesn’t even know the difference between liberals and the Left. And yet it is content to be stuck in its bipolar politics that continues to give us worse and worse choices.

  • I think Bernie Sanders is pretty understandable by most Americans. It can be done. The Israeli left has an image of being elitist and naive. I think their policies are better for working class Israelis, but that gets lost along the way. The Israeli left hasn’t really recovered from the 2nd Intifadah and Rabin’s death.

  • So, if I said that I hated Arabs, you would understand the context. I have every reason to hate Arabs.

  • No, they’re not cons. They are myths which say a lot about human nature. That’s not the same as a con.

  • The Arab League had its own boycott of Israel, but not just Israel. It includes a boycott of businesses with Jewish CEOs or Jews on the Board of Directors or Jews in major positions in any company.

  • Susan,
    Those of us on the Left regard Sanders as a liberal–an FDR New Deal liberal. From a leftist point of view, the difference between liberals and leftist is the issue of Capitalism. Liberals want to make Capitalism palatable while Leftists want to either undo it or switch to hybrid economies that include principles from both. But here one has to realize that the first concern of those on the left is not the redistribution of wealth, but the redistribution of power to workers and others at both work and in the government.

    I’ve read some of the Israelis who oppose the Occupation. The people I have read don’t seem hung up on the 2nd Intifada, they prefer peaceful means of ending the Occupation. Some of the people I have read include Jeff Halper, Gideon Levy, Neve Gordon, Tom Segev, and Amira Hass. I’ve read others as well.

  • Susan,
    Just like the hating Jews, hating Arabs is not right. But I would need to know the context for why you hate Arabs to better understand it and respond. Is the hatred reactionary or displaced anger or xenophobic or whatever else?

    When the US was attacked on 9/11, many people claimed that we didn’t need to know why the terrorists hated or attacked us, we just needed to strike back. That is despite the fact that the main reasons for why they attacked us was because of our foreign policies. Understanding why we were attacked could help reduce the number of future attacks if we responded to the reasons appropriately. Sometimes, that is the same with hatred. We want to use understanding to reduce future hatred.

  • A con definition – to persuade someone that something is true when it is not .

    Some examples: Abraham and Moses existed, Easter, Passover

  • I didn’t say those on the left are hung up on the 2nd Infitadah. The 2nd Intifadah made the left look weak and naive to a lot of Israelis, including Mizrachi Jews who usually don’t vote for leftist parties. The Israeli left is unwilling or unable to change that image.

  • Susan,
    What is most obvious to us is our own frame of reference. But because we live in a world with multiple groups, we are dealing with multiple frames of reference. So it isn’t necessarily as obvious as we would like to think it is.

  • Susan,
    Thank you for clarifying that. I would add that the perception that the left is weak would most likely be held by those who thought that the 2nd intifada was a first strike rather than a response to injustice.

  • It was a hateful response to a peace offer. Stones aren’t flowers and they can kill people. I support a two-state solution, but I’m not going to ignore the truth. According to you the Palestinians can’t be blamed for anything. Being “oppressed” excuses them from basic humnaity or even common sense.

    Mizrachi Jews are Jews from Arab countries and most of them don’t for “peace” candidates or Labor.

  • The rabbi of my synagogue knows that the Exodous isn’t real. Yet, he’s still a rabbi and he still celebrates Passover. He was an unhappty lawyer before he became a rabbi, but he certainly made more money as a lawyer.

    The Torah is full of teaching stories. They try to show what to do or not to do. Biblical literalism or fundamentalism is very unJewish.

  • Susan,
    We’ were having a rational discussion until you wrote that, according to me, the Palestinians can’t be blamed for anything. Why would you say that? Is it because I wrote that the 2nd intifada was a response to injustice? Why do you oppose the Occupation then? Is the Occupation morally wrong or just a mistake?

    Saying that the 2nd intifada is a response to an unjust Occupation does not excuse the terrorism that the intifada employed anymore than saying that the 9/11 attacks were a response to American foreign policies excuse those attacks.

    Trying to understand the context and how injustice causes people to react unjustly doesn’t excuse the people for their unjust responses. Rather, it often exposes injustice exercised by multiple groups. I have no problem with condemning Palestinian terrorism. But how would you respond if your group was being denied something they thought was rightly theirs? History tells us that before Israel became a state, Jewish terrorist groups attacked the British. Is the issue for you whether one is excusing the actions of another group, which I am not, or is it to prove that one group is morally superior to the other?

  • I think I mentioned before, more Palestinians were killed in “Black September” by Jordan than the entirety of Israeli occupation for 50+ years.

  • It’s not just European Christians. It’s in the “New Testament” itself and it affects Christians everywhere in the world. Chritianity didn’t start in the Europe.

  • I’m not sure traditional liberalism or tradional leftist politics are enough in a world of global climate change, environmental degradation and rising sea lelvels.

  • The occupation is both wrong and a mistake. I don’t need you to explain the Palestinians to me or to have empathy for their condition. I understand why the 2nd intifadah happened. However, it wasn’t entirely spontaneous. Palestinian leaders fanned the flames. They could have accepted Israel’s existence in 1948 and then they would have a state and there wouldn’t be refugees. They thuoght Jews would be easy to beat.

    Jews were wrong to attack the British civilians.

  • Susan,
    Is it the New Testament or a skewed view of the New Testament that produce anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism? And disagreement with Judaism the same as anti-Judaism?

    Why could it be European Christianity alone? It could because the link between Church and state that occurred all throughout Europe.

  • Susan,
    I think leftist politics are enough to battle those things if people would sign on. But to do so would mean adopting a different attitude toward obtaining wealth.

    Because not enough people would sign on with the left, I believe that we need to collaborate

  • Susan,
    The idea of empathy is to identify. The more we identify, the less we can look down on others.

    But I wouldn’t presume to explain the Palestinian viewpoint. For that, you need to listen to Palestinians just as, in 1948, they needed to listen to Jews. The sins of both sides, however, go back significantly before 1948.

  • It’s both. It’s definitely in the “New Testament” itself and it’s aslo a skewed view of the “New Testament.” The same “theology of contempt” exists in all Christians everywhere, even it’s unconscious. That includes you Curt Day. Christians in other places may not have had power to act on it, but it was definitely there.

  • I don’t. The left has changed in some good ways and some bad ways, but it’s not enough by itself.

  • The most obvious is the claim that Jews are “Christ killers.’ The less obvious mostly involves the portrayal of the Phrarisees. Pharisees always believe that saving someon’e life or their health superceded Shabbat, but you would think the opposite was true. A liberal Black reporter tweeted comparing Evangelical supporter of Trump to “villainous Pharisees. The Pharisees weren’t villainous. They laid the foundation for Judaism to survive the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish diaspora. Nor were the Pharisees hypocrites or Pettyfogging legalists only. They were deeply religious men. Some of them were scholars and mystics. They wanted to sanctify everyday life. Some of them were poor. I don’t have the time or the space to go into every specific example in the “New Testament. The “New Testament” is largely a polemic to prove the spiritual superiority of Christianity over Judaism. You shouldn’t go by the “New Testament’s” account of anything the Pharisees do on any day.

  • My experience of listening to Palestinians have not gone well so far. Mostly they want to demonise Israel and Zionism and then insist they can’t be antisemitic after they’ve told me Zionists control Ameican media. I’m not saying that will always happen. It is possible to pe pro-peace, pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian all at the same time. You did try to explain the Palestinians to me. I don’t need it. I don’t lack empathy or understanding of the Palestinian side, but I must insist on Israel’s safety and continued existence.

  • Susan,
    The Pharisees are never written in the Gospels as portraying all of the Jews. In fact, just the opposite is done in the Gospels as the Pharisees are portrayed as oppressing those under them. There is a discrepancy between how the Gospels portrayed the Pharisees and what you just wrote.

    And yes, the Gospels report that the Jews calling for Jesus to be crucified said that His blood should be on their heads. But no mention of that is made in the Epistles so that Christians were taught to see Jews as “Christ killers.”

    Tragically, and possibly because of Xenophobia, many Christians have through history seen Jews as Christ Killers. Such was a cover for their hostility toward the Jews and others who were different. Think of the religious wars that engulfed Europe for several centuries. There was horrific anti-Semitism too, but my point is that both might have been due to Xenophobia rather than what they thought was taught in the Bible. The same applies to when Jim Crow was in force in the South. People used the Bible to defend it just as early settlers here used the Bible to justify attacking and taking land from Native Americans.

  • Susan,
    I understand the problem of listening to Palestinians talk about Israel. The question is whether due to their own life experiences as Palestinians. I’ve talked to some Jewish Settlers in person and that experience did not go well for the ones I talked with felt entitled to take from the Palestinians what they wanted.

    I’ve also talked with Palestinians. And some I’ve talked to felt more threatened by Jewish Settlers than by Hamas.

    The great suffering by people who are Jews and Palestinians continues to make more difficult and complex the issues involved there.

    As for pro-Zionism, I wonder if that is a contradiction to democracy. I am not denying the need for a Jewish homeland. I am questioning the idea of a Jewish state in a land where there has always been more than one ethnicity. Can we have a Jewish homeland that is a multinational state?

  • Israel was created as a refuge for Jews and we may at any time need once again. I’ve heard Iish commentators who are against Zionism even though the new Republic of Ireland did not allow Jews to enter Ireland in the 1940s. Israel already is a multinational state. Arabs vote and hold seats in the K’nesset. The rate of Arabs attending colleges has greatly increased. In polls, Israeli Arabs don’t want to live in a Palestinian state. No one objects to a French state or a Polish state. Why is a Jewish state such a problem? I’m not saying there isn’t prejudice and discrimination, Israeli Arabs have many avenues to correct this. How soon after Pearl Harbor did Americans put Japanese Americans in internment camps and we’re a democracy.

    As for the settlers some of them are fanatics and will resist government attempts to move them if a peace deal is reached. In some cases Israel could keep some settlements and offer other land to Palestinians as a replacement. There are some settlers who are not fanatic and are just there for a good deal.But I do understand that the government gives them free reign. They frequently break laws with no consequences.

  • The Pharisees were not oppressors of those under them. If any Jews were, it was the Saducees, the priestly class and the wealthy landowners. The Pharisees were a democratizing force. They wanted to turn the home into a portable Temple. They were not interested in Temple ritual. They were interested in sanctifying every day life. Some Pharisees were wealthy, but many were working class or even poor and had day jobs. Hillel and Akiba who followed the Pharisees were both executed by the Romans in a more gruesome fashion than Jesus. Akiba didn’t even learn to read until he was 40. Christianity wanted to prove it was superior to Judaism and that Christianity supreceded Judaism.

  • Susan,
    Israel is not a multinational state, it is a Jewish state that is designed to keep a Jewish majority for the population. That is one reason why the right of return for Palestinians has been rejected.

    There is just too much documentation showing that Arabs do not have equal rights and standing with Jews in Israel. Their political parties are limited and controlled. Arab citizens do not enjoy the equality promised by the government of Israel.

    You ask about nobody objecting to a Polish or French state? But neither Poland nor France were settled by a nationality from another part of the world. Israel became a Jewish state because of European immigration. And thus, it was because of European immigrants that indigenous Palestinians became second class citizens in their own homeland to Jews who were from foreign countries.

    In addition, ethnic democracies are the kind of democracies practiced mostly in eastern europe. It is not Jeffersonian democracy as described by Thomas Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address:

    though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will,
    to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their
    equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be

    A “democracy” that favors one ethnic group above another is rightly called an ‘ethnocracy’ by some such as Israeli activist Jeff Halper when he wrote that an ethnocracy comes about when :

    one particular group–the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia (and, more evidently, in the former Soviet Union), the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland, the whites in Apartheid South Africa, the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran, the Malay in Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalists in the US–seizes control of the government and armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethnic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privilege ethnos over demos, where one’s ethic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to whom a country actually; “belongs.” Israel is referred to explicitly by its political leaders as a “Jewish democracy.”

    The problem with defining Israel as Jewish state is that it flies in the face of democracy as a state of being for a nation. It flies in the face of equality, especially equality for citizens belonging to minorities. And, btw, Arab citizens do not see themselves as being treated as equal in the nation of Israel.

  • Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel. Unless you believe in junk science and think that Ashkenazi Jews aren’t. I admitted that Arabs were not equal, but they should be. That can be remedied. It’s just not true that Arab political parties are controlled.

    Would you say that America is a democracy? It wasn’t really a democracy until the late 1960s and people had to be hosed, jailed, beaten and murdered for it to happen. There is also the large number of Black men who were lynched. Yet, Israel has been at war for its entire existence and it’s still a democracy, if an imperfect one. You don’t apply the same standards for Israel that you do America. Where is that quote from? I don’t buy it. Jews were victims without a single friend, including America. Jews needed a Jewish sanctuary. I couldn’t live in America if it didn’t exsist. Jewish history is full of lulls when Jews were tolerated and lived well followed by periods of persecution. States that were supposed to be “multinational” did not help Jews one bit. Arab citizens do have the ability to improve their situation. They are not helpless in Israel. So, underneath all your fine talk, you’re really just an anti-Zionist.

  • Susan,
    There are indigenous Jews to the land. But European Jews were not. And their only interest in Palestine was the result of their horrific treatment in Europe.

    Would I say America is a democracy now? No, and I say that with some documentation (see ). But even apart from that issue, America has been an ethnocracy itself from its beginning all of the way up through Jim Crow. And now there is a struggle to undo that ethnocracy and we have those who don’t want that to happen. And how America has historically treated people of color is horrendous and I have no problem in saying that.

    But the idea that Jefferson expressed is an idea that we should both agree with.

    I fully agree that Jews have needed, and still do, a sanctuary. But putting that sanctuary in a Jewish state, though quite understandable given European history, has forced the Israeli gov’t into making one moral compromise after another. Those who have been victimized sometimes go on to victimize others. Pence inadvertently pointed that out when he compared Israel and American histories. Here, people escaping religious persecution were the first to persecute others once they got here from England. We are talking about an all too human trait of how our own mistreatment often leads to the mistreatment of others.

    Perhaps instead of answering with accusations, we need to itemize that on which we agree and see how we can address those issues in our nations.

    As for the quote, it comes from page 74 of Jeff Halper’s book An Israeli In Palestine. And, btw, the past circumstances in which Jews found themselves implies nothing about whether the Jews have or have not created an ethnocracy in Israel. Nor do past circumstances justify an ethnocracy today. As I said before, making Israel an ethnocracy is understandable, but it is also wrong. And when you wrote that Arabs should be treated as equals, you are lending support to Halper’s observation.

  • The Pharisees represented ordinary Jews. There is the example of the Pharisees attacking poor hungry people for picking fruit in an orchard on Shabbat, but the Pharisees believed that saving lives or saving someone’s health suprcede Shabbat. I don’t understnad why that story should be there except to make the Pharisees look bad. There was a more liberal interprtation of the laws and a stricter interpretaion of the laws They frequently fought but the more liberal almost always won out.

  • You are wrong, European Jews are all originally from the Middle East. Genetics has shown that European Jews are genetically closer to Palestinians than to other Europeans. Jefferson had slaves and didn’t think that Africans or Black people were equal to White people.

    I think that Arabs can be treated as equals in what you call an ethnocracy, but I call an imperfect democracy, as all democracies are. Just because a Jews says something, doesn’t mean it can’t be wrong or even antisemitic. I do equate anti-Zionism and antisemitism. That’s not an accusation. It’s a fact. I wholeheartedly and completely believe it.

    So, what is your solution? A one state solution would be a disaster. States are still necessary in 2018. They are not anachronistic.

    It also seems to me that you are doing more accusing than I am. All that talk abut empathy and understanding each other was meaningless. Your understanding and empathy only goes in one direction.

  • Susan,
    European Jews are not indigenous to Palestine. In fact, if you follow the story of Abraham, Jews are not indigenous to Palestine at all. Abraham left his home country in order to settle elsewhere. That would make his descendants indigenous to his homeland. Of course, if you want to say that Isaac, Jacob and his sons were indigenous to Palestine, how is it that European Jews did not eventually become indigenous to Europe. Again, their interest in Palestine was the result of their horrific treatment by European Christians, otherwise they would have considered those European countries to be their homes.

    In addition, European Jews from Northern and Eastern Europe are not genetically what you say they are (see ). The difference in findings is based on whether the dna is traced through males or females. But the problem with your statement is that as Jews lived in Europe for centuries, that has they bred with Europeans, that their descendants could be counted as indigenous to Palestine when they were not completely Jewish. And again, if the Jews, because of the DNA link, are counted as indigenous to Palestine, then how is it that Isaac, Jacob, & sons were not indigenous to Abraham’s home country? In addition, the Israelites had to expel the people who were indigenous to the land? Does expelling the indigenous people of Palestine make the Israelites the new indgenous people of the land? Americans would say yes considering how we expelled native Americans from the land.

    Finally, what Jefferson and Halper after him are saying about democracy cannot abide en ethnocracy. An ethnocracy gives privilege to one group over others. What Jefferson and Halper are saying about democracy is that it is not just a set of procedures for deciding leaders or polices, it is a state of being where society is being shared with others as equals. When we talk about sharing society with others as equals, we talk about people having rights. When talking about having a group having privilege, we are talking a group gaining a place of supremacy over all other groups.

    Yes, democracies are going to be imperfect. But there is a divide between ethnocracy and democracy. And if you want equality for Arab citizens of Israel, you can’t allow for a place of privilege of Jews over them.

    What is the solution? Is it a one-state solution or a two-state one? Currently, the combination of the Occupation and the constant confiscation of land in the West Bank has made a viable Palestinian state not viable. Is a one-state solution a disaster? Isn’t the current situation a disaster for the Palestinians?

    BTW, what have I accused you of? Below is what you have accused me of:
    1. Lack empathy
    2. not applying the same standards to Israel as I do America
    3. saying that Palestinians can’t be blamed for anything

    What have I accused you of?

  • For some reason the reply button on your last comment doesn’t work. I’ve seen that article from livescience. before. It’s junk science. The last person who directed me to that website called me a Zio-turd. They are the only people who take it seriously. This from a person who criticized Spuddie for using Wikipedia. You’ve been exposed for who you truly are.

    Jews are indigenous to the Middle East. They are not European colonialists even if Abraham moved there from his Middle Eastern home.

    I do have books to recommend that you read. You may notice a theme. Dave Rich-The Left’s Jewish Problem, David HIrsh-Contemporary Left Antisemitism., Robert Fine and Philip Spencer-Antisemitism and the Left.

  • For some reason the reply button on your last comment doesn’t work. I’ve seen that article from livescience. before. It’s junk science. The last person who directed me to that website called me a Zio-turd. They are the only people who take it seriously. This from a person who criticized Spuddie for using Wikipedia. You’ve been exposed for who you truly are. This from The Forward: Ashkenazi Jews Are Not Khazars. Here’s The Proof. via @jdforward I also found 3 articles on BBC’s website. Just put Jewish Genetics in the search engine and they will come up.

    Jews are indigenous to the Middle East. They are not European colonialists even if Abraham moved there from his Middle Eastern home.

    I do have books to recommend that you read. You may notice a theme. Dave Rich-The Left’s Jewish Problem, David HIrsh-Contemporary Left Antisemitism., Robert Fine and Philip Spencer-Antisemitism and the Left.

  • Susan,
    A link that checks on the reliability of the source of the article is below:

    As you will note, the factual reporting rating is high for Thus, to call it junk science requires that you document that claim. And the legitimacy of the site is not affected by the rudeness of the last person who directed you to the site.

    IN addition, the person she cited for the claim is Professor Martin Richards. The article from which the livescience author drew the information from was actually published in the journal Nature. Nature is a British multidisciplinary scientific journal. So any issues you have with what was written in the livescience article, must also be taken up with the article, linked to below, from Nature

    So now what am I being exposed as? Again, this is another accusation following a comment where you accused me of making accusations.

    European Jews are not indigenous to the Middle East anymore than Americans are indigenous to the European countries their ancestors came from. Again, you will have to address the issues I brought up regarding Abraham and his immediate descendants to address the point People who have not lived in a given area for centuries can hardly be called indigenous. And addressing that issue is preferable to making another accusation.

    BTW, why are you recommending books that talk about the left and anti-Semitism? BTW, we should note that Palestinians are Semites too. To show prejudice against Palestinians is to be anti-Semitic just as showing prejudice against Jews.

  • Semites are members of a language group that speak Semitic languages. if you look up anti-Semitism in any dictionary, it will say anti-Semitism means prejudice against Jews. That is it’s modern meaning and you know that. You’re being disingenuous. That is something that anti-Semites often say to pretend their not anti-Semites. Yes, you’re an anti-Semite a subtle and a “kinder and gentler” one, but you’re still an anti-Semite.

  • Also from BBC website:
    Genetic study sheds light on Jewish diaspora
    Scientists have shed light on Jewish history with an in-depth genetic study.

    The researchers analysed genetic samples from 14 Jewish communities across the world and compared them with those from 69 non-Jewish populations.

    Their study, published in Nature, revealed that most Jewish populations were “genetically closer” to each other than to their non-Jewish neighbours.

    It also revealed genetic ties between globally dispersed Jews and non-Jewish populations in the Middle East.

    This fits with the idea that most contemporary Jews descended from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents in the Middle Eastern region known as the Levant. It provides a trace of the Jewish diaspora.

    Doron Behar from Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa, Israel, led an international team of scientists in the study. He described it as a form of “genetic archaeology”.

    “It seems that most Jewish populations and therefore most Jewish individuals are closer to each other [at the genetic level], and closer to the Middle Eastern populations, than to their traditional host population in the diaspora,” he explained.

    There were exceptions to this key finding, though, as Dr Behar explained.

    He said that his research revealed that Ethiopian and Indian Jewish communities were genetically closer to their neighbouring non-Jewish populations.

    This may be partly because a greater degree of genetic, religious and cultural crossover took place when the Jewish communities in these areas became established.

    Novel analytical techniques allowed the scientists to examine the genetic samples they took in unprecedented detail.

    Dr Behar says the data from this study could aid future research into the genetic basis of diseases that are more prevalent in the Jewish population

  • Jews and Arabs are ‘genetic brothers’

    Jewish heritage has been maintained

    They may have their differences but Jews and Arabs share a common genetic heritage that stretches back thousands of years.
    The striking similarities in their biology have just been revealed in a study of over 1,300 men in almost 30 countries worldwide.

    Scientists compared the men’s Y chromosomes, the tiny structures within cells that carry the genetic instructions that tell a developing foetus to become a boy.

    The comparison also showed that Jews have successfully resisted having their gene pool diluted, despite having lived among non-Jews for thousands of years in what is commonly known as the Diaspora – the time since 556 BC when Jews migrated out of Palestine.

    Genetic signatures

    Throughout human history, alterations have occurred in the sequence of chemical bases that make up the DNA in the Y chromosome, leaving variations that can be pinpointed with modern genetic techniques.

    Related populations carry the same specific variations. In this way, scientists can track descendants of large populations and determine their common ancestors.

    The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that Jewish men shared a common set of genetic signatures with non-Jews from the Middle East, including Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese.

    These signatures were significantly different from non-Jewish men outside of the Middle East. This means Jews and Arabs have more in common with each other, genetically speaking, than they do with any of the wider communities in which they might live.

    Good opportunity

    Dr Mark Jobling of Leicester University, UK, one of the authors of the new study, told the BBC: “The kind of DNA we have used to analyse this question is the human Y chromosome. This represents only 2% of our genetic material and it is passed down from father to son.

    “This makes it particularly interesting to use in a study of Jewish populations because Jewishness is passed down from the mother to children – it is maternally inherited. So using a paternally inherited piece of DNA gives us a good opportunity to see the signal of mixture with other populations if this has occurred.

    “The fact that we don’t see it suggests that after the Diaspora these populations really have managed to maintain their Jewish heritage.

    Dr Jobling dismissed the idea that the study could have any political implications. “It seems that in many of these situations where groups are in conflict with each other they are likely to be pretty much genetically indistinguishable, and this factor, to the peoples involved in these conflicts, clearly isn’t the point and isn’t likely to change their behaviour very much.”

  • OK Curt so I copied 3 entire articles and gave a link to a 4th. Three articles are from the BBC webiste which is not pro-Jewish or pro-Israel. One is from The Forward, a Jewish liberal/left magazine. It’s origins are secular socialist and go back the Triangle Shirt Waist Fire era. I do not accuse. I state what I genuinely think.

    Why would Jews claim a connection to a land that didn’t exist? There ae no diamonds, gold or oil in Israel. There isn’t even very much water. Jews have a real connection to this land.

  • So where should Jews have gone instead? America? Jews were not wanted, espiciallly in large numbers. During the Holocaust the wife of the Secretary of State said of Jewish children, “They’re cute now because they’re children, but they will grow up to be ugly Jews.” Go back to Europe which was one large graveyard for Jews. Go back to Poland where returning Jews were attacked and massacred. Go back to the equally antisemitic Russia.

  • Susan,
    If you note where I expressed agreement in my last comment, then you will note that location is not the issue, the kind of state being created is. In my last comment, I explicitly stated that Jews needed, and still do, a sanctuary. There was nothing wrong with having that in Palestine. But to make a state there where Jews have privilege over the indigenous people who were al ready living there was wrong and triggered violence from Palestinians who were looking to make Palestine a Palestinian state as some Zionists who were looking to make it a Jewish state. In other words, both sides were wrong because of the privilege they wanted their own group to have in the state.

    WHile you stated that you thought Palestinians should have recognized Israel, I believe Palestinians should have recognized the need for Jews to emigrate much earlier before statehood became an issue. The two groups should have worked together for each other rather than posing as threats to one another.. Both sides are equally at fault in the earliest years because of the exclusive privileged status each group wanted to create for their own group in a new state.

  • For a sanctuary to be real it would have to be in a place where Jews can control their own destiny. There isn’t any other nation or group that I or Jews should trust. I wouldn’t trust the UN or the ICC or the EU either or for that matter anyoen whose not Jewish.

    Btw, below I copied 3 articles that refute your claim that Ashkenazi Jews are not indigenous to the Middle East. Plust there is a link to a BBC radio interview. They are not in reply to any comments.

  • Susan,
    It can’t be a real sanctuary for as long controlling their own destiny suppresses the destiny of others. And that is what we had back then and today.

    Just as much as the Jews wanted a homeland, so did Palestinian nationalism arise from the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They too were looking for sanctuary only they were doing that in their own land. So if for the Jews to have sanctuary , they must have control, then doesn’t that ring true for the Palestinians as well? So it would be just as moral if, in an effort to secure sanctuary, the Palestinians were in control of the land instead of the Jews?

    Or take the situation here. Blacks have been marginalized for the entire history of the US. For them to have sanctuary from such marginalization, must they wrestle control of the nation from whites and then have the control that Jews have in Israel?

    When you don’t want to recognize other institutions like the ICC, you don’t want to be accountable for how you treat groups other than your own. And then you start to imitate your past oppressors.

  • That’s why I support a two-state solution. I don’t think it has become impossible. It can still be accomplished. That way we both can have self-determination.

    The situation in Israel is completely different. Black Americans are from Africa where they were had tribes and countries. Jews had no where else to go. Jews weren’t from anywherte except Israel. They agreed to a much smaller state than they wanted to have a state and to have peace and then they were attacked by Arab armies.

    Jews have learned over history that trusing others means that that you are alone when you’re in danger and you need help. German and Austrian Jews were the most assimilated in Europe and it didn’t help them in the end. That’s one the most important lessons to learn in retrospect from the Holocaust. The Holocaust wasn’t a university and it wasn’t a seminary. Most of the Jews who entered Death Camps were dead in 48 hours. There wasn’t much time to learn anything.

    I wouldn’t mind being accountable to an insittution that would treat Israel and Jews fairly, but one doesn’t exist at this time. Why are Jews always accused of “imitating their oppressors”? No one said that to Black South Africans when they attacked immigrants from Zimbabwe or to anyone else for that matter.

    PS: Towards the very end of the comments section are 3 articles from the BBC I posted that refute your claim that Ashkeanazi Jews are not originally Middle Eastern. One of them is a link to a radio interview where a link is proved between today’s Jews and the Temple’s priestly class DNA. I also accidentally posted one article from the Forward on the Leonard Cohen post. I’ve noticed that you don’t respond if you can’t correct me.

  • Susan,
    There are two problems with the two-state solution. First, what about Arab Citizens of Israel. They’re still struggling for equality within the state of Israel. And Jewish state impedes, rather than enhances, their reaching equality.

    The second problem is that Palestinian resources have been so decimated by the Occupation taking of land, that, at the current time, a Palestinian state is not viable.

    We can’t escape the problem of privilege by moving those who do not belong to our group out of sight. It really comes down to a matter of sharing society, and the world too, with others as equals.

    As for what Jews have learned, history has been cruel. But history teaches more generic lessons. Lessons such domination begets resistance. Another lesson is tat abuse begets abuse. The immorality used to maintain the Occupation is like continually charging purchases on one’ credit card. At some time, the bill is due and the debt must be collected.

    While it is anti-semitic to single out Jews from all other people in a negative way. It isn’t right to single out Jews in positive ways as gaining privilege over other groups. Do you really think that a nation whose existence depends on exercising superiority over others will always be able to maintain that position? History doesn’t know of any examples where domination lasts forever. And so what will happen to the israelis when they lose that domination? Because when that happens, they will be facing a lot people who are rightfully angry at them and will move those rightfully angry people to conduct atrocities. History teaches us that.

    And btw, you are simply claiming that no organization will treat the Jews fairly. But not only are you merely claiming that without grounds, you express inadequate concern for treating the Palestinians fairly. For their unfair treatment does not need an immediate stoppage. But a Jewish state must be accountable only to itself because you claim no one else will be fair. Our best show is with the ICC.

    Regarding your PS, if you can provide a link to the site, that would be helpful, I am very busy right now. But the article you will have respond to if you are out to challenge its findings is the one Nature. And regardless of what you proved there, the length of time Jews spent in Europe no longer makes them indigenous to Palestine. And here, you have to realize that you are comparing Jews whose families spent centuries in Europe with Palestinians who spent centuries in Palestine.

  • No, it doesn’t impede their reaching equality. It improves it, because peace is good for everybody and specifically Israeli Palestinians.

    It’s not a groundless claim. No organization has treated Israel fairly so far. Even the ICC was 100% fair, they still could not impose a solution. It is also more of the matter that even if an organization was fair. It’s not dependable that it always will be fair and Jews can’t leave their fate to any organization.

    I actually copied and pasted 2 whole articles onto this comments section. You don’t need a link and you don’t need to look them up. I also copied a link to a BBC radio interview on this comments page. On the Leonard Cohen page I copied and pasted an entire article from The Forward in that post’s comment section by mistake.

  • susan,
    That is not their testimony about how things work and neither is it in a state that privileges a group above them.

    Whether peace is good depends on what price. And right now, it seems that you favor privilege over equality.

    BTW, prove that the ICC has not treated Israel fairly. No organization has treated Israel fairly? THese are claims meant to be used as excuses to maintain the status quo because your group benefits from the status quo above others. And regardless of what is pointed out, you are defending an ethnocracy, which by its definition is a denial of equality, over against a democracy. And you are doing so without regarding the long-term consequences that history shows will be disastrous for any group that seeks a place of superiority over another group. One of the things I fear most are the long-term consequences for all Jews, especially the Jews in Israel.

    Will look up the links when I can.

  • Susan,
    Please note that none of your documentation deals with the study from the article from Nature


    The interview in the livescience article draws, through the professor they interviewed, from the article in nature. You immediately called the findings in the livescience article junk science and yet I am unaware of you dealing with the contents of the article linked to above.

  • Much of the prejudice against Israeli Palestinians is that Israel is still fighting Arabs and Arabs are still the enemy. That will change after peace, although it will take time. There was a time during both World Wars when Germans were hated. Trump’s real last name is Drumpf. It was changed to sound less German. Japanese Americans were put in internment camps. Palestinian Israeli live in a country where there is free speech and they can work to change their situation.

    I don’t need your lectures on equality or on history, your condensension, or your assumption of moral superiority. It won’t change my opinion. It doesn’t matter if the ICC has treated Isael fairly. It’s that Jews can’t be dependent on its fairness.

  • They don’t need to refute the article in Nature. Jews like everyone are not “pure.” We all have mixed up DNA. The articles I posted prove that Ashkenazi Jews’s DNA goes back to the Middle East Even what the Nature article claimed is true, Ashkenazi Jews DNA still goes back to Middle East.Their DNA is still closer to the DNA of other Jews and Arabs then it is to other Europeans. So if the Nature article is true. It wasn’t enough to change the basic DNA of Ashkenazi Jews. The BBC radio interview even proves that the DNA of the original priestly class continues in Ashkenazi Jews today.

  • Susan,
    Sorry if you don’t need the mention of equality even though you favor an ethnocracy, The reason why we need an independent group judging Israel is why we need an independent group judging the Palestinians, judging America, and judging each nation. That need for fairness is not a Jewish need, it is a human one. Every one needs that accountability because everybody is vulnerable to exploiting others. Remember that my proposal is that Israel, the Palestinians, and America subject themselves to the ICC.

  • Susan,
    The issue isn’t whether everybody is mixed, the issue was to what degree were European Jews european by their genetic makeup. And if you want to say that the DNA of European Jews, Northern and eastern European to be exact, are more Jewish, then you have to refute the article from the Nature journal, not what was said in the BBC article. For it is the article from Nature that challenges the evidence you brought up.

    And again, some of the European Jews goes back to the Middle East. But some of it also goes back to Europe. Are they indigenous to two areas? What about Americans here. Most have DNA to Europe. Are we indigenous to Europe and thus have the right to demand that we return because we are indigenous to Europe?

    It is European Christian anti-Semitism that drove the modern Zionist movement. Needing a Homeland for security is fine. But assuming privilege over the Palestinians who were living there was not. And their rejection of sharing was not right also. It is how both started to move to nationalism in the same area that is the problem.

  • There is also Muslim antisemitism. European Christian antisemitism entered the Middle East with Western colonialsim in the 1800s. There was already an exisisting, but different form of Islamic antisemitism. Jews were always second class citizens in the Muslim world. They were dhimmis. Mohammed had nice things to say about Jews in the beginning when he thought they would convert to Islam. He turned ugly when he realized they would not convert to Islam either. In Iran, a Muslim but not Arab country, Jews couldn’t go out in the rain, because their Jewishness might contaminate Muslims. Muslim were the first people to force Jews to wear yellow badges. Jews from Arab countries had a longing for Zion too. They had their own form of Zionism.

    European Jews are European by their genetic makeup to a very small degree. Americans don’t need a refuge in Europe. At least wealthy Americans of European descent are in power here.

    If you don’t have a state you get screwed. Nationalism is not obsolete in the 21st century. Just look at the Kurds.

  • I don’t need the mention of equality, because it can be achieved in a Jewish state. I support equality even if you don’t think I do. As for the ICC, you are being impossibley naive. The ICC is also set up to prosecute individuals for crimes, not to settle disputes.

    I forgot to say that that many North African Jews were murdered by the Nazis too.

  • You are never going to convince me that Israel can never have equality of all citizens. What you call a multinational state is really a binational state which would be very bad for Jews. Certianly, telling me I don’t believe in or care about equality won’t convince me of anything.

  • Susan,
    While America was predominantly Christian, we never achieved equality. Think about how long Israel has been existence. Is there equality there? And we should note that ethnocracies, by their very structure, are not conducive to establishing equality. In fact, ethnocracies are established to oppose equality.

    And no, I am not being naive about the ICC. But I am following the views of a former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz who has, on a number of times, stated that America should join the ICC. In his opinion, it is well equipped to handle any violations of international law by America, and it already has jurisdiction over other nations, why could it not handle violations of international law by Israel, the Palestinians, and America?

    Your reaction to my suggestion of being under the ICC is very similar to the attitude of many patriotic Americans. It is that of believing one’s nation is above the need to be under their jurisdiction. I don’t think any nation is.

  • Susan,
    There is a lot of tribal-based bigotry out there. There are multiple sources of anti-Semitism, Christians are being persecuted, and Muslims are too. As for Mohammad, his biggest beef was not with Judaism or Christianity per se, it was with materialism that led to injustice. And by Islam’s most basic tenets, Christianity, because of its belief in the trinity, is, by definition, opposed to Islam.

    Sorry, but no, you don’t need a state for protection. Especially when getting that state means that you have angered other groups by being unjust to others. Contrary to your view, as states become more competitive for resources, nationalism because the source of all sorts of bigotry. Church history has taught me that. For as long as Christians put themselves above others in nation, they have committed many atrocities in order to maintain their privileged place. And those atrocities are all justified in their eyes because it is being done for something greater than the individual: the nation.

    We can’t let any bigotries fly in under the radar. But the more way by which we divided ourselves into groups, the more bigotries come into existence. Yes, nations are necessary and they can be evil. But if one cannot share society with others as equals in one’s nation, what makes one think that nations can share the world with other nations as equals?

  • Susan Stein replied to Susan Stein 2 hours ago

    “””””You are never going to convince me that Israel can never have equality of all citizens. What you call a multinational state is really a binational state which would be very bad for Jews. Certianly, telling me I don’t believe in or care about equality won’t convince me of anything.””””
    Answer: I had to quote you arguing with yourself.

  • QUote: “””today’s Jews and the Temple’s priestly class DNA””
    Answer: kohen? The pharisee/sedducee requirement of the idol, zion. are the bad guys of Deut 13 and ezek 22, the dross

  • Jews are against israel and control their own destinies about everywhere on the earth. The fools claiming israel represents jews or Judaism are the liar desporate for the a lie ya of disastora

  • idolatry for the temple, that will never exist on that mount again…………………… but be honest, that is not a jewish pursuit, but the zionist, the dross.

  • Israel doesn’t have oil. It doesn’t have minerals or gold or diamonds. They get most of their water from desalinaiton. What exactly are they not sharing. Yes, Jews do need a sanctuary. 2017 saw the largest increase in antisemitism of all forms in the UK. You never know what will happen in the future. Progress does not go only in a straight line or all in one direction. What you’re basically saying is that Jews shouldn’t be Jews. Of course you would never say Christians should stop being Christians. Christianity has long attacked Judaism for not being “universal.j” Even though Christians believe that Jews are goiing to Hell because they don’t believe in Jesus, but Christianity is “universal” and Judaism isn’t. Christians haven’t need ed a state to be bigoted and hate Jews. You’re wrong about Mohammed too. In many ways he was similar to Martin Luther who at first liked Jews when he thought they would convert to his “new and purified” version of Christianity and turned ugly when they wouldn’t convert.

  • America is still predominantly Christian. israel has existed for a very short period of time. A blink of an eye in Jewish history.

  • Jews are not agains Israel. There is no poll or study that shows that. No, Jews don’t control their own destinies anywhere but Israel.

  • Susan,
    So while you are introducing subjects outside of our conversation and
    throwing in yet another accusation, the issue is whether Israeli Jews
    will share society with other Israelis as equals. Is that asking too much? Is it Jewish not to share society with others as equals? Or do only some Jews believe that? BTW, I’ve been placing the same challenge to my fellow Christians here especially with regards to same-sex marriage. I’ve been telling them that they must share society with others as equals. And in that challenge, the others are the members of the LGBT community,

    And what we are seeing with Netanyahu’s comments about the West Bank is not progress, it is about continued domination and the taking of more land.

  • Susan,
    I agree with your analysis but I think that current state is wrong.f And I constantly speak out against it. Domination practiced by others is no excuse for any group to practice it.

    It just wasn’t in America where Christians dominated society; it was in europe too. And that was the case for centuries and it allowed for the expression of anti-Semitism. Since it was wrong for European Christians to dominate the Jews in Europe, why would it be right for Israeli Jews to dominate Israeli Arabs and Palestinians?

  • Muhammed’s biggest beef with Judaism was that the though he knew the truth and his truth was better and superceded the Torah. Jews did not accept that and prefererred to stay Jews and he couldn’t abide that, so he turned to hatred towards Jews.

  • First of, all in another reply, you did say that Jews needed a sanctuary. Yes, a Jewish state can acceopt Palestinians as equals. I have questioned that and I do think it can be done. Judaism calls Jews to protect and love the stranger and treat the stranger well. It calls Jews to treat all people well, but Jews are not prefect. Israel has been at war since it’s existence. That has created a bad situation. The situation of LGBT in Christianity is not the same thing. The LGBT community is not anti-Christian. LGBT people have never killed Christians.

    i have never agreed with Netanyahu, but there a lot of Israelis who don’t agree with Netanyahu.

  • I was replying to the tone in your comment. It contained certain anti-Jewish tropes. You’ll just say I’m changing the subject or accsuing you. Some on the left divide Jews into the good Jews who are anti-Zionist and the vast majority of Jews who are the bad Jews who are Zionists. I was once questioned whether I was a Zionist or not in a very threatening way. I would have said I was a Zionist even if I wasn’t because Jews shouldn’t be put to a test to enter the community of the decent. That’s what you’re doing. If I don’t agree with you I’m against equality and a bad Jew and a bad human being.

  • No, it isn’t. I don’t think that humans should rebuild the Temple. That should wait for the Messiah. I am a Zionist so, I am part of the dross.

  • I don’t see how the article in Nature can be true and the articles I posted can all be true at the same time.

  • Susan,
    I am going by what he wrote. It was materialism that bothered him. It waas the same with Christians as well. And if you go by the Crusades,it was the Muslims who exercised tolerance toward the Jews, not the Christian armies.

  • I am Jewish and I have met all kinds of Jews. JVP is like that guy I see on TV holding up a “Blacks for Trump” sign. He doesn’t represent anyone, but himself. JFJFP are just the same.

    What is your background? It’s hard to understand you. You can barely express yourself in English.

  • Susan,
    Definitely Jews need a sanctuary. But a Jewish state, like a Christian state or any other ethnocracy, cannot accept others as equals. Why? Because it is against the nature and purpose of an ethnocracy to do so. And in terms of real life, we have yet to see any ethnocracy accept others as equals. Those ethnocracies that accept others as equals are changing from ethnocracies.

    What you are talking about is a paternalistic relationship. One group shows love as long as that group is in control. But what sacrificed are rights and freedom because the controlling group has privileges. And those privileges are there to guarantee the ruling group’s position of control over others.

    In addition, what we have been talking about are human problems shared by all groups of humans. The Jewish treatment of the Israeli Arabs and Palestinians is a human treatment that is not particular to the Jews. Many groups that have been oppressed turn around and oppress others. Many of those who came to America to escape religious persecution persecuted those who weren’t from their group when they got here. Christians persecuted fellow Christians who were from other denominations. Many of the people Christians persecuted were not persecuting them. Puritans, for example, martyred Quakers.

    Regardless of whether the other group is trying to kill them, forgetting, of course, that both groups are attacking each other when it comes to Israel and ithe Palestinians, we are dealing with human problems here. And it doesn’t matter if you agree with Netanyahu or not, you agree with Israel being a Jewish ethnocracy. You disagree with Netanyahu’s extremes in defending and expanding that ethnocracy. Others don’t go to his extremes but maintain Jewish control.

    Let me ask, is the solution for the racism that still plagues America to have white institute a kinder and gentler white ethnocracy? Or is the solution found in whites sharing society with Blacks and all other races as equals? What should whites do if, because of changing democgraphics, white will no longer be the majority race?

  • Susan,
    The only parts of your articles that disagrees with the Nature article is the info on DNA. And, memory serves, the DNA part of your proof did not even address the study performed in the Nature article. So now either you hold the differing sets of evidence in tension and look to further study the subject or you pre-emptively declare one set of evidence to be true and the other false

  • JVP are Jews voicing proving your claim was another lie.
    JVP is not a HE but a group of Jews (honest souls, putting empathy for life, before the extremism of zionism)
    My back ground I AMERICAN before any religion. I express myself, quite clearly, and why you keep responding with rhetoric when you read information, that is against your beliefs.
    For example: Jews are the good guys and zionism is the problem. The fools require Jerusalem, the city of blood and the Jews DO NOT. It’s an old argument that had been occurring since jospehus, but that is perhaps too much reading for a zionist.

  • I’ve read what he wrote. At first he said positive things about Jews and then turned vicious. I know about the Crusades and Muslim Spain, but even in Muslim Sprain Jews were not equal to Muslims. Muslim Spain wasa unique setting that was more liberal and tolerant than other Muslim in other places where. Jews were tolererated because Muslims saw Jews as being weak, unable to fight, almost feminine. There were other times and places where Jews were not treated well by Muslims, particularly in Yemen and Iran. It is true that Christians treated Jews worse, but that doesn’t mean they treated Jews well

  • Your assumptions are just wrong. America was founded for different reasons than Israel. I don’t buy it. You will never convince me otherwise. A Jewish state is necessary for a real refuge. You lecture me, but if you don’t think so, you really aren’t the person you set yourself up to be here. Israel is democracy and change is possible. Israel has a parliamentary system and even very small parties can end up with a lot of power, if they are necesdary for a coaliton. The Puritans were convinced that they had the truth and everyone should be Puritans. Jews have never thought that it was necessary that everyone be Jewish. They are not a good example. If you say one more time that “many people who are oppressed turn around and oppress others, I will stop listening. That is a trope that is used specifically against Jews for trying to control their own destiny.

  • Jews were in the minority in Europe. They wouldn’t have minded being “dominated” if they could live in peace and security. I’m not saying that Palestinians should accept being dominated, but is not a permanent part of a Jewish state. It does not have to be that way. It is not an inevitalbe result of a Jewish state. I believe that a Jewish fully democratic state for all its citizans is possible. You are not willing to condemn the treatment of Jews and Christians in Arab countries. They are almost no Jews left in most Arab countries and soon there won’t b amny Christians left either. You won’t condemn Muslim domination. What you want is for Jews to have a fake unreal refuge that won’t be available if needed.

  • JVP are Jews. I’m not the one saying that real Jews aren’t Jews, because they don’t agree with me. You are. JVP represent a tiny minority of Jews. The vast majority of Jews support a Jewish state. Insulting Zionist won’t change anything. Why don’t you do something useful?

  • Susan,
    I read what he wrote too, and it is what I reported before. His biggest problem was not with Jews and Christians per se, but with all who gave into materialism.

    Yes, Jews were not equal to Muslims there. So why would it be right for Muslim and Palestinian Christians to not be treated as equals by Jews?

  • Susan,
    Which assumptions are wrong. Is real, again, is an ethnocracy with laws written to maintain that ethnocracy. To change Israel from being a Jewish state is equated by many with the destruction of Israel.

    That there are differences between the Puritans and Israeli Jews does not negate the similarities in the comparison made. Why? Because comparisons target similarities. Israel has been persecuting the Palestinians. IN addition, they have not treated their own Arab citizens as equals. The point of the comparison is that those who were oppressed often oppress others. It is a human trait and the example of the Puritans was there to point to that fact.

    So, let me ask this: why not make Israel a binational state rather than a Jewish state?

  • Susan,
    Actually, the modern Zionist movement came into existence because the Jews Knew that they would never be recognized as fellow citizens

    Peace and security can come at great prices. Some Blacks in the old South could have peace and security provided that they were good slaves.

    Let me ask the same question I asked in another comment: Why not let Israel become a binational state rather than a Jewish state?

  • 1. Israel wouldn’t be a refuge for Jews anymore. 2. It would be a disaster for Jews. 3. a Jewish state is not automatically an ethnocracy. 4. You use the fact that Jews were and are oppressed as a cudgel to beat Jews up with.

  • Susan,
    First, you didn’t answer my question. Either you have a democracy or you have an ethnocracy. With a democracy, you can have a binational state in Israel, you can’t have that with an ethncracy. So let me rephrase the question: Why not let Israel become a fully democratic state rather than a Jewish democratic state?

    Second, have you noticed that you have made six accusations about me during our conversation. Your latest one: ‘You are not willing to condemn the treatment of Jews and Christians in Arab countries.‘ If I am against all ethnocracies, including the one in Iran that was explicitly mentioned in one of the comment I made to you, why do you say I am not willing to condemn the treatment of Jews and Christians in Arab countries. Accusations like those are meant to distract people from the discussion at hand. And you have tried that now around 6 times. When you so consistently make unwarranted accusations, do you think that I can trust the claims that you make for yourself?

  • Susan,
    1. Why can’t Israel be a refuge for Jews if it wasn’t a Jewish state?

    2. Why would it be a disaster for Jews.

    3. If Jews have privileged place of supremacy in society as exhibited in their control of the government, how can such a state not be an ethnocracy?

    4. When I criticize Israel, I criticize them for their domestic polices and practices toward Arab citizens as well as the Palestinians. So how is it that I use past oppression as a crutch to beat the Jews up with when I am only concerned with ending the inequality that exists in Israel and between Israel and the Palestinians? Please note that I have never excused Palestinian terrorism but want the Palestinians to be under the same jurisdiction as Israel.

    Finally, the above contains your 7th accusation against me. How can I trust the claims you make about your beliefs when you consistently make unwarranted accusations against me?

  • Susan, what you consider jew and what is jewish, is perhaps where the vast majority of your problem is. The jew are not the dross, in idolatry for zion. The jew honor the rules as priority of being jewish, not family friend or state.
    What is useful, is educating the ignorant about personal responsibility before it’s too late.

  • A Jewish state Jews do not automatically have a place of privilege or supreamcy. That is the assumption that is wrong. How many times have you said that vicitims turn into opressors? There are at least 4 different places where you have said that. If Jews can’t control their own destiny, they can’t guarantee that Israel will remain a sanctuary for Jews. I have seen the current Palestinian leadership and I don’t even trust them to treat their fellow Palestinians fairly.

  • Please explain what happened to the Jews who lived in the Saudi Arabian peninsula before the advent of Islam. Mohammed didn’t just think Jews were materialists. He came to hate Jews.

  • If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish according to Jewish law. If you convert to Judaism, you become Jewish and a part of the Jewish people. I can assure that being a Zionist does not mean you idolize Zion or the Temple or anything else. I’m proud to say I’m a Zionist, but I don’t worship Zion.

  • Susan


    Cut this jerk off

    He is one of those people who think being Jewish as an identity makes you bigoted

  • Susan,
    What makes a state a Jewish state? And would you say that an Arab state would not have a place of privilege for Arabs?

    I am not working from an assumption, I am working from definitions.

    As for 4 places, Israel can’t guarantee their own destiny as it stands now. Why? Because Israel itself is making too many enemies because of the inequity of their policies and history tells us that no one group stays on top forever.

    If you don’t trust the current Palestinian leadership, I join you. But what evidence exists that tells Palestinians that they can trust Israeli leadership? This is why honest 3rd party brokers, like the ICC, must be brought in.

  • I have answered your question before. You just don’t like my answer. Israel is a democracy, but an imperfect democracy, as all democracies are. You assume that a Jewish democratic state can’t be a fully democratic state, but I think it can and it will be. You’ve never condemned the treatment of Jews in Syria or other Arab countries, but there are almost none left so your too late. I don’t have any reason to trust yours claims and I don’t automatically. You’ve never condmened the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt. or anywhere else. You just make statements about equality, but the only country you mention is Israel.

  • Susan,
    My question is this: Why not let Israel become a binational state rather than a Jewish state?

    Claiming that Israel is a democracy does not address the question. After all, Israel is a Jewish state. But my questions is, why not let Israel become a binational state rather than a Jewish state?

    And again, I am not assuming anything about Israel as a fully democratic state. I am using definitions. And a state that grants one group privilege over other groups in a diverse state is not a fully democratic state. In addition, Israeli Arabs do not consider themselves to have and equal status in Israel. And certainly Palestinians are not treated as equals. So where is your fully democratic state?

    And I don’t care if you trust my claims. What I have written here is verifiable. But what you claim about Israel being a fully democratic Jewish state is neither supported by definition nor the facts on the ground.

    Finally so what I haven’t condemned the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt. That is irrelevant when the subject hasn’t been brought up before. Also, when talking about the lack of equality, I have said quite a bit about the US. So I have mentioned both Israel and the US and I have included a quote that condemns the ethnocracy in Iran. So your claim is false and you should know because you brought up the subject of the US and I answered it.

    If you want a serious conversation, quit the accusations and the use of irrelevant points to jump to conclusions.

  • There are very few Arab states that are real democracies. I’m not sure there even is one. Arab states haven’t even treated their fellow Arabs fairly if they were not the right kind of Muslim let alone not Arabs. A Jewish state first is a refuge for Jews and it is a place where Jewish survival is not dependent on others.

  • Susan,
    There are very few Arab states that are democracies. But right now we are talking about Israel for several reasons.

    If you will note, which states the US supports depends less on whether they are democracies and more on strategic interests. And that includes Israel. Consider Egypt since you mentioned it. Egypt is to the US what Syria is to Russia: a place to sell/dump weapons. The US cares little about the rights taken away from the Egyptians by the current US supported regime. Consider that the US supported Saddam Hussein until he invaded Iraq. So take US support for Israel with a grain of salt.

    Finally, again, a Jewish state is more than just a refuge for the Jews. It is a place of privilege for Jews where most Jewish citizens from other nations have more rights in Israel than Israel’s Arab citizens or the Palestinians. A Jewish refuge is still absolutely needed. But the Jewish state continues to make more enemies than it can continue to deal with. That is what most threatens a Jewish refuge.

  • I repeat Zionists are Jews. Most Jews are Zionists. It is not your decision to decide who is Jewish and who is not.

  • Would a state with a majority of Arabs be a democracy where Jews can live freely and have a refuge for Jews? I don’t think so. No, you can’t have a sanctuary for Jews without a Jewish state. I still disagree with that it will have to privilge Jews. I won’t change my mind. I know that you disagree with me, but the only solution is a two-state solution. Jews would be a threatened and endangered minority in a binational state. I don’t like or agree with Israel’s present government, but Israel is not making more enemies. They have the same enemies as before.

  • You’re a women, you’re not allowed to head bang at the kotel.
    And it is well established; there is no temple on that mount,
    nor ever will be again.

  • The anti-Zionist world-view of the ultra-Orthodox groups Neturei Karta and Satmar Hasidism perceives Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel as an anti-messianic act, conceived and born from sin.

    “Holding ordinary Jewish people morally responsible for the actions of the Israeli Zionist state is not only wrong, it is racist.”
    ISreal DOES NOT represent jews.

  • Susan,
    Democracy is about more than refuge, and majorities; it is about a given nation belonging equally to all groups regardless of who has the majority. And here it seems that you think a Jewish state can offer such a democracy while an Arab state can’t? Do you know what that sounds like especially when the facts on the ground say that the Jewish state has yet to offer such a democracy?

    The logic of your argument doesn’t work. For if Jews could not find a refuge without a Jewish state, how is it that Palestinians, who have longed for their own refuge after suffering under the Turks and seen their land given to European refugees, hope to have a place of refuge without a state of their own?

    The Jewish state is not just by definition an obstacle to democracy, it is by dynamic too. For all of your arguments have revolved around one point: fear. There is a fear of the other and thus the state cannot be shared with the other as an equal. There is a historic fear that associated not having control with vulnerability. How can a Jewish state, which is motivated by fear of the other, become a democracy where the state belongs equally to both Jews and the other? And the facts on the ground show that no such state has either existed or is a possibility.

    One would think that a two-state solution is the answer. But a two-state solution is not viable because of the land confiscated, the plans to control the West Bank regardless of the peace deal made, the way the land is divided, and the destruction of both income generating resources and infrastructure. In addition, fear does not allow Israel to support an equal Palestinian state. And a two-state solution does not address the problems faced by Arab citizens of Israel.

    What we need to realize is that history is another obstacle to proposed solutions. The way Modern Zionism sought to find a refuge was based on injustice being done to indigenous Palestinians. And the Palestinians responded with injustice of their own.

    Right now,, the rule of law must replace the rule of force for any solution to be worked out. And, from what I see, the only way the rule of law can be introduced is for America, Israel, and the Palestinians to be under the jurisdiction of the ICC. The problem with that? Israel’s fear of the other.

  • `I don’t need you to lecture me on democracy or equality or fear anything else. I repeat that’s why I support a two-state solution. It is not fear that motivates me. I have seen attempts at democracy in the Arab world and in none of them are minorities as free as Israeli Palestinians are in Israel. I don’t think you would want to live there either. Israeli Palestinians don’t want to live there either. A two-state solution is still possible only people who don’t want peace or don’t want a two-state solution think it’s not. In some places land that is now part of israel can be switched to a Palestinian state. Such a state is very much possible and will probably need peace ot reach its final goal, but you’re wrong it is possible. I repeat the ICC prosecutes individuals. It does not solve disputes. You’ve also ignored the tremendous fear and hatred in the Muslim and Arab world of Jews and yes, hating Zionists is just camoflaged Jew hatred.

    You don’t reply if you think you can’t lecture me. It offensive and condenscending. You are saying that Zionism is racism and thus labeling the vast majority of Jews who think there should be a Jewish state racists too. You also put words in my mouth that I didn’t say and use them to lecture me when I don’t need it. I know what democracy means.

  • This is my last reply to you. There was a Temple on that Mount. That is why Muslims built their Mosque on top of it. It is bigoted and inaccurate to say there wan’t a Temple there. You don’t care about Jewish women at all, so don’t pretend you do.

  • Past tense. Idolatry for the site is not Judaism. Zionism is not Judaism. That same argument has existed since josephus and the prophets, the dross are not jew.
    Animal sacrificing is neanderthal to say the least, so don’t pretend the site is ‘holy’.

  • Try the consideration that empathy and honesty are why the chosen, were loved so much, not by who their parents are!

  • Susan,
    Have you noticed one of the themes in your comments. Jews can create a democracy that provides equality for all, Arabs can’t. You have not problem sharing your claims about Jewish democracy while you have no need to listen to what I have to say. Along with the 7 accusations you have made against me, you seem not to notice that it is you who act condescendingly here. Iti is you who is trying to dictate what I can and cannot say. Why not you be the one who refuses to comment if you are going to make accusations or so order people around?

    A two-state solution provides no relief for Arab citizens of Israel. In addition, the inequity that is in Israel today extends to the two-state solution. Are you claiming that that Israel will welcome a Palestinian state that is equal to Israel?

    And the dynamic that works against democracy is evident in your comments. You claimed that a democracy with an Arab majority cannot provide even a refuge, let alone equality, for Jews. With that perception of Arabs, how is it that you or others can create a true democracy that does not recognize your group as being privilege.

    Yes, you believe in a two-state solution. But what kind of two-state solution. Israel has so decimated Palestinian society that a two-state solution is not feasible because a Palestinian state is not viable. And Netanyahu, with his insistence that Israel controls the West Bank regardless of any peace deal made, is simply following what past Israeli leaders have insisted on.

    Also, the ICC is the appropriate agency to rely on. It doesn’t matter that it judges individuals, what else would you want? It’s individuals who belong to nations that commit crimes who are prosecuted. If nations can’t protect their leaders from prosecution, then leaders are given an incentive to lead differently.

  • Once again all your patient lecturing isn’t going to change my mind. You have not given me an example on one Arab counry that treats its minorities fairly, because they aren’t any. Actually, I think that’s gotten worse, not better. You ignore the antisemitism that permeates the Arab world. You’re still wrong that a 2 state solution won’t help Israeli Arabs. It will. What about the EU, the UN, The Arab League and all those cuontries that support the Palestinians? Won’t they help get the a Palestinian state on its feel? The Israeli government will have to change, but you’re not doing anything to help that. Israelis already think the world is against them.

  • Susan,
    Changing your mind is not my responsibility. I can only present my case using facts and logic. And that you have responded with a number of accusations and commands indicates to me that I’ve said that could be said at the moment.

  • Almost no one wants to restart animail sacrifice. 95% of Jews are Zionists. so the drosss are the Jew. Yes, the site is still holy. That was the way my ancestors got closer to God.

  • I don’t need you to notice what I’ve said or written. Yes, you have presented your case, but not with facts and logic only. I told you, I don’t accuse. I say what I think. That’s not the same thing. I don’t need your condenscension or your logic because I do think logically. You’re just saying it’s not logical because I don’t agree with you.

  • Susan,
    I have presented my case with facts and logic only. Too many times you have responded with insults or other shows emotion. And yes, I have already listed some of your accusation earlier. You take care and try to prove to yourself that Israel is on a path to recognizing Arab citizens as equals. This is my last note to you. Why? Because you don;t want to respond with just facts and logic.

  • OK my last comment. You have not presented your case with only facts and logic. I have also presented my case with facts and logic, but according to you, it can’t be factual and logical because I don’t agree with you and you have the monopoly on facts and logic. You’ve been condenscending and offensive. Israel is personally important to me. I may respond with some emotion. However, I don’t see why you are so focused on Israel alone.

  • Susan,

    You didn’t present for your case. You simply claimed that Jewish democracy is a full democracy. But Jewish democracy privileges over Arabs. A full democracy is without regard to maintaining an ethnic majority for any one group. But you maintained that for Jews to have refuge, they have to have control. But that control eliminates the idea of a full democracy because a full democracy protects the rights of minorities. When Jews from other nations have automatic citizenship and more rights in Israel than indigenous Arabs, that is no full democracy.

    Of course, when one considers how Ethiopian Jews have been treated in Israel, there is at least one group of Jews who have not been granted more rights than Arab citizens of Israel


    Israelis were very excited and proud to bring Ethiopian Jews to Israel, and felt a particular affinity for their commitment to Judaism in exile and desire to return to Zion. Nevertheless, Ethiopians have sometimes been victims of discrimination. Only 25 percent of Israelis say they want to live next to Ethiopians and the government settled many of them in towns on Israel’s periphery.

    In 2015, protests erupted when a video surfaced showing two policemen beating an Ethiopian-Israeli soldier while he was in uniform, highlighting want members of the community said was a pattern of police brutality. A subsequent demonstration in Tel Aviv turned violent and 60 people were injured.

    Activists also complain that students of Ethiopian descent, even if born in Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Absorption rather than the Ministry of Education. They say that their history is not being taught with the same diligence as that of other immigrant groups.

    Some conditions are improving for Ethiopian Jews, but what hope to Arabs have for equality when some Jews themselves are battling for equality because of racism in Israel?

    You can’t admit that you made any accusations while you claim that it was you, not me, who used facts and logic. Try looking at how Arab citizens of Israel see Israel:

    Or you can look at some other findings:

  • Almost no one? Are you a dross wannabe Jew, that trusts the rabbi’d before doing the work yourself.
    idolatry for the site or making a city holy is wrong. The more you want the site, the further you are away from god.
    Do you think a god would like you better for having empathy for the oppressed, over defending the apartheid of dross for zion?

  • .
    So, bottom-line, Salkin — you happily lapped up Pence’s pandering platitudes. BFD — confirmation bias strikes again, only from (for you) an unexpected source.

    Btw, the Pilgrims and the Plymouth Colony were never exclusively representative of the early English settlements in America — where does Jamestown fit into your comfy mythos? They were not religious dissenters at all.

    And the Pilgrims and the Plymouth Colony were certainly not in the least bit representative of the American zeitgeist in the years leading up to the Revolution or in the establishment of our new nation. Many parts of the Constitution were drafted in deliberately specific opposition to objectionable provisions of the Mayflower Compact.

    Our Founding Fathers disavowed the Pilgrims’ legacy — Mike Pence is peddling a myth just like David Barton does.

  • I have been trying to decide if it’s worth it to continue this discussion. It is demeaning to all Zionists to have to prove that a Jewish state can be a dmocracy. I don’t accuse. I say what I think. It’s your problem if you see that as an accusation. I don’t make irrelevant points either. You also reinterpret what I say to support your own opinion. I have always said that Israel was an imperfect democracy, but so are all democracies and that is a verifiable fact. I recommended those books to you on the left and antisemitism, because they talk about how anti-Zionism doesn’t have to be antisemitism, but it usually is. I will say what I want to say. I don’t answer to you.

  • Susan,
    There is no more discussion with you. Why? I am tired of both your accusations and your denial of making those accusations.

    In addition, I’ve given you no reason to feel demeaned as a Zionist regarding Jewish democracy. My point from the beginning is that no group, including the Jews, can create a full democracy around themselves that guarantees equality for all. So if you feel demeaned by my position, it is because you think that I have not given Jews the credit for being exceptional above all other groups.

  • What about Jews who are waiting for their Messiah to bring them to the Promised land and that may not be today’s occupied territory ? Meanwhile between the waiting and the occupation what about the fate of the indigenous Palestinians? Mike Pence politics should not be oblivious to another holocaust being revisited to another people.

  • “christian.zionism” is a Mental Illness, period. No one can worship a War god and a Peace God at the same time. Low self-esteem. Feelings of inferiority causing them to grovel to the past.
    How can anyone claim to believe in Jesus and the ANTI-Jesus both at the same time?
    ANTI: a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “opposing,” “antiparticle of,” antibody; antifreeze; antiknock, antidemocratic …….. ANTICHRIST).
    What is more ANTI-Christ than:
    (1) to crucify Him …. Under Roman Law the Jews could not impose a death sentence so TWICE they dragged Christ before Pilate demanding His crucifixion until Pilate grudgingly “Washed his hands” . Jesus was crucified by the Romans AT THE INSISTANCE of the Temple Priests who threatened “NO Crucifixion, NO Peace” Sound familiar?
    Jesus was a HEREM (excommunicated) Jew … the Priests could not push for a death sentence on a “Jew in good standing”.
    JUDAS ISCARIOT was a Jew ….. in good standing with the Tribe.
    (2) Immediately send many agents of the Priests (SAULof Tarsus was ONE) to kill His followers.
    (3) Inspire such fear of being murdered by the Priests that the first Christian church was hidden in a cave
    (4) Instigate pogroms against His followers throughout the Roman world,
    (5) spit evertime you see a cross for 2,000 years,
    (6) under the cloak of Communist Bolseviks they HOLOCAUST 66MILLION Christians Here is a breakdown and a listing of the Jew Bolsheviks
    TODAY ISIS(rael) is behind the genocidal invasion of Christian Europe.
    (7) Today they use “front groups” like the ACLU, ADL, SPLC, to attack Nativities and any other symbol of Christ they can.
    The essence of Judaism is vengeance, the essence of Christianity is forgiveness. They are Polar OPPOSITES.
    Jews ARE the ANTI-Christ
    ‘Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Messiah.He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son” 1John2:22.
    “christian.zionism” is a mental illness. You cannot worship a Peace god and a War god at the same time.