Jewish rabbis call for dismantling Israel

Like Spooky said. This is old news. There have always been some Orthodox who believe that a Jewish state is only viable when ushered in by the Messiah. They're pretty much a fringe element, so it doesn't really effect the debate at large.

God promised the descendants of the prophet Abraham the 'Promised Land', why are Palestinians defying the Almighty's prophecy?

Since "God's Promise" was made to Abarahm's decedents, does this "Promise" trickle down to the Semitic Jews who already converted to other religions?,
Does their conversion to Islam or Christianity forfeit the fact that they are descendents from Abraham? It should be noted that many famous Jewish tribes in Arabia, Yemen, Palestine, and Iraq had converted to Christianity and Islam.
Based on their genetic make (D.N.A.), could they become Israeli citizens despite of their conversion?

For the moment, let's assume that the Palestinian people undergo a mass conversion to Judaism, do you think that would put an end to the conflict? or
Do you think the Israeli government would be forced to revise its definition of "WHO IS A JEW"?

According to a Ha'aretz newspaper (a major Israeli newspaper) reported in March 2001 that half of the Russian Jews who immigrated to Israel in the 1990s belong to mothers who recently converted to Judaism,
Do you still believe that these people are connected to "Eretz Yisrael" via the Biblical prophecy?
Click here to view an article published by the " Jewish Agency" regarding this issue.

Does the Israeli Right of Return law apply to the atheist Jews who inherited Judaism from their mothers? If your answer is yes, then
Why the Right of Return law does not apply to Jews who converted to other religions?
Are you aware that Jews who convert to other religions would not be able to gain automatic Israeli citizenship based on the Israeli Right of Return Law?

Finally, the exact borders of the "Promised Land" have not been geographically defined. The Biblical "Promise", which "God had granted to Abraham's descendants", covered the areas between the Nile River in Egypt and the Euphrates River in Iraq,
Does that imply that Israel's future borders eventually will span the borders of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Southern Turkey?
Could that explain why Israel has neither a constitution nor a properly defined borders?
In that regard, it is worth sharing the following encounter between Pinhas Rozen (Israel's first Justice Minister) and Ben-Gurion (Israel's 1st Prime Minister). Rozen demanded that Israel's Declaration of Independence should cite the country's borders. Ben-Gurion objected, and both exchanged the following:

Hi Hajj, you don't have to copy/paste the full text. A link is just fine.

E.D.Kain

Like Spooky said. This is old news. There have always been some Orthodox who believe that a Jewish state is only viable when ushered in by the Messiah. They're pretty much a fringe element, so it doesn't really effect the debate at large.

the war because of this state is effecting to many people at large

Yet throughout history, the same story has happened again and again, as far as the Jews being persecuted in "foreign lands." Are we to presume that such pogroms, inquisitions, and another potential Holocaust couldn't happen again?
It surely could, but as long as there is the State of Israel, there will be a refuge.
And so long as there is an Israeli Defense Force, Jews will be protected, because as we've seen throughout history, and not only during the Holocaust, no one will fight to protect our women, children, and elderly for us.

Jews are not only accepted, but dominate many aspects of popular culture. Think Hollywood.

Accepted is one thing. Jews were accepted in Germany before the Nazi's came to power. Many thought of themselves as Germans. Acceptance can flip at the drop of a dime, and without a State of our own, we would once again be subject to the Grace of our Diaspora Rulers.

Jeremiah9, may I second your position. The horrors of the 20th century are still within memory; the ha-shoah, the destruction and murder of European Jewry, Stalin's campaign of murder and expulsion of the "rootless cosmopolitans", the expulsion of Mizrahim and Sephardim from and Islamic and Arab lands are evidence for the need for a people to be a nation and for this nation to have a land.

Keep up your total one sidedness kipster. It really helps defuse your arguments nicely. The fact is, the UN created Israel, and they tried to create Palestine, too, but the Arabs refused and invaded.

Does Ariel Ze'evi count?

The Word was not "Judozionists" but rather

Judeozionists

Judeo is rather different than Judo.

They escaped the Holocaust and founded Israel in 1948, where you acknowledge they found everyone getting along. How is it wrong to refer to the founders of Israel as terrorists? They were traumatized weren't they. These comments were said by the founding father of Israel in 1948.

You think they just showed up suddenly in 1948? They didn't.

But you're right, it was shortly after the Holocaust that the State of Israel became official.

I was referring to Zionists. Perhaps they never heard of Judeo-Zionism.

Read my last statement carefully. I guess that's why they come to the vine. To get smarter.

---Kipster

Why do YOU come here? If not to get smarter.

Most Palestinians would agree that Israel has a right to exist

Source?

Perhaps I'm on to something here, no one wants to touch the question.

That's because this question has been asked and answered so many countless times on the Vine.

Once more for those who came in late:

Judaism is a People, not an ethnicity (per say). Having gone over this many times on Newsvine, I will once again address the question. Judaism is both a Faith and a People, though the People can be of many ethnicities.

This is due to the Diaspora which caused the Jewish people, who were once ethnically very close, to spread across the globe, intermingling with the locals from Russia to Ethiopia to America, and intermarrying and such until the ethnicity of the various Jewish populations began to become distinct.

Regardless of skin color, however, Jewish people are still a race, though in this sense they are not a race defined by skin color. There are atheist Jews, which shows how it is not just a religion.

E.D. Kain is right - we are a people, although would quibble with the word race, since that would not account for converts, and it is a loaded hard to define term anyway outside of botany and birdwatching.

I would add that even Jews don't agree on who are "the Jews." One way to understand this is through the term Jewish community is composed of both Jews and non-Jews, owing to intermarriage and problems of definition.

sory about the tortured grammar above - computer froze halfway through editing, though I think the meaning is intact.

I've always thought of the word "jewish" as being both an ethnicity and a religion, with the two being not necessarily the same people.

Yes, hence observant and non-observant....

I would add that even Jews don't agree on who are "the Jews."

Urbane is certainly right on this one...especially in regards to converts....

Far be it for me to tell a number of Jews what a "Jewish" is, but ... the term I use is "nationality," for one very ancient reason, one quite modern.

The ancient reason is that the first use of the word "nation" in Western Civ, or anyway of a concept that has been continuously translated as such, was in the Old Testament as a description of the Hebrews.

The modern reason is that fits "Jewish" a little more firmly into the modern rubric of a "nation state."

E.D. Kain is right - we are a people, although would quibble with the word race, since that would not account for converts, and it is a loaded hard to define term anyway outside of botany and birdwatching.

I would add that even Jews don't agree on who are "the Jews." One way to understand this is through the term Jewish community is composed of both Jews and non-Jews, owing to intermarriage and problems of definition.

A Jewish friend of mine explained the concept of "ac people" like this-- it is not a common type of classification today-- therefore the confusion with race-- religion-- or not. Rather, the Jews are a people in the same manner as American Indian tribes were . They consider themselves to be a unique nation. They have their own culture, their own language and their own religion. In terms of "race" (if you believe in that concept) many adjacent tribes were not that different-- just as Jews and Arabs aren't. However,they do have their own unique culture -- and religion-- and language.

I guess many tribes in Africa could also be considered distinct "peoples."

The modern concept of nation is somewhat different-- "France, italy and Spain are considered Catholic countries"-- but all the inhabitants are not Catholic. aND "racially" there is diversity within each country. And while they have their own language-- that may also disappear over time. (I would imagine unique languages amonst smaller countries-- for example Dutch, will disappear first). Because the modern concept of a country is different than the older concept of a nation.

Palestinians are more akin to native Americans, Ironically.

You are speaking of racial identity? (or cultural?)

Why? So we can fight another Six-Day War? That war has already been fought...and subsequent wars fought because of that specific one.

Any future wars pending?

Good Point, Jews want that, Zionist don't.

if thats to happen then peace will come about

Hajj Jafar

Good Point, Jews want that, Zionist don't.

yes from the jews i have met whom understand their scripture that is true

yes from the jews i have met whom understand their scripture that is true

I think in other threads we've established just how little IslamicScholars understands regarding the Jewish scriptures.

You just saw one. I am going to introduce you to a real Jew. He will tell you his story. Jews tend to call him nut-cake, self hating Jew. Mentally Ill, Etc etc and etc. You be the Judge of this poor man.

My Name Is Brother Nathanael Kapner.
I Am A "Street Evangelist."

I Grew Up As A Jew.
I Am Now An Orthodox Christian.

Hey, this is a funny website. I met this settler who converted to Islam. He went to Morocco and found himself a Muslim wife. The funny part, this guy live in the midst of hard core Zionist settler. He has better knowledge of the Quran then I do. It scares me. Personally, I think he is mentally little pit off. I am going to link you his picture with while standing next to me. Thanks again for the site.

Hoki Doki. I'll use some quotes instead:-)

I shall never be a heretic; I may err in dispute, but I do not wish to decide anything finally; on the other hand, I am not bound by the opinions of men. --- Martin Luther

Zionism & Israel Center is part of a network of Web sites supporting fair play for Israel by providing basic facts and informed opinion. It includes a view on Neturei Karta. Gush Shalom also holds similar views too, again representing some Jews in Israel.

Hajj linked to a Blog that has an article titled 3 Goals of the New World Order of which the second - Melt Down Of Financial Institutions - is especially poignant right now. Of course, all these are examples of various minority sects and views by Jews, all against the principle of Zionism. Not saying who's right and who's wrong. But it makes sense to acknowledge that there are alternative views among Jews.

I happen to know quite a few Jews who subscribe to the same mindset. They do not go around announcing themselves as Orthodox in any way; just normal guys and gals; gentle in their ways but quite sure about their views on Judaism and Zionism and what they identify with. They mirror what these rabbis are saying about Zionism.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. --- Mohandas Gandhi

Since over half of world Jewry currently lives in Israel, I have a feeling many, many Jews accept it.

Fine, if they deserve a place, they were offered Uganda. But oh no, they want to be with the Arabs. They should took Uganda, because they will never rest in Palestine.

...okay, I'll bite. Why won't Jews ever rest in Palestine?

Because we Arab and Palestinians alike will never allow the Zionist to live in peace while inflicting death and destrcution on us, stealing, terrorizing and murdering Palestinians.

To prove my point, watch this.

inflicting death and destrcution on us

You mean taking out terrorists planning the murder of Israelis, terrorists caught in the act of terrorism or attempted terrorism, and very regrettably some Palestinians caught up in the crossfire exacerbated by terrorists firing missiles from the middle of densely populated areas?

stealing, terrorizing and murdering Palestinians

Stealing what? Israel is an internationally recognised state, which covers at least the pre 67 borders. The occupied territories are (under UN Res 242) to be handed back as part of a negotiated peace. They are Israel's negotiating trump card and will obviously not be given back until a genuine peace is on the table.

Terrorising? Taking a tough line on security - hardly surprising with Israeli civilian lives at stake.

Murdering? Only terrorist leaders are targeted. A bit rich really when Palestinian terrorists do nothing but attempt to murder Israeli civilians.

To be blunt it is only because of the mentality typified by the hate-filled rantings we've seen on here that Israel has no confidence that there is any real prospect for peace. If there were more calm, rationality and a genuine desire for peace (as opposed to screaming insults at Israel and accusing Israel of every absurd crime under the sun) we might get somewhere.

srael was founded because, the Jews deserve a place of their own. Besides, their claim to the area is older than even the Muslim's claim to it. Lastly, some Jews opposing Israel doesn't mean all Jews oppose it, in fact, a good many support it.

The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart...[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David's conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule."

Regarding Uganda: yeah, much more reasonable people there. It is unfortunate that the Jewish Holy City of Jerusalem has to be located amidst probably the most violent, turbulent, unreasonable region in the world, but you can't change that. Asking the Jews to accept Uganda would be like expelling the Arabs from Saudi Arabia and asking them to abandon Mecca in favor of Saskatchewan.

And mars chatterton, your history lesson is irrelevant. Israel exists. It has been tried by the fires of war, and has succeeded. It isn't going anywhere, and sensible discussion should focus on what can be done to achieve peace.

Dennis M Wright said:

Israel is an internationally recognised state, which covers at least the pre 67 borders. The occupied territories are (under UN Res 242) to be handed back as part of a negotiated peace. They are Israel's negotiating trump card and will obviously not be given back until a genuine peace is on the table.

According to this guy, 'Land for peace' a fantasy. Hamas has already offered a 10-year truce for Palestinian state on '67 borders, which immediately was rejected by the US and the Israeli leaders. How is this phony policy going to convince anybody that Israel really wants peace?

Keld:

Hamas has already offered a 10-year truce for Palestinian state on '67 borders,

Unacceptable.

Therefore, war continues.

Unacceptable.

Why is truce/peace unacceptable to Israel?

Keld:

Because a truce doesn't guarantee peace and it does not acknowledge Israel as a legitimate interlocutor.

Basically, Hamas is saying they want a ten-year timeout to better prepare for the destruction of Israel. So. Why would Israel give them that?

jfxgillis said:

Because a truce doesn't guarantee peace and it does not acknowledge Israel as a legitimate interlocutor.

If the truce doesn't result in peace, Israel could just start over the cleansing of the Arabs again. Does Israel acknowledge [the democratically elected] Hamas as a legitimate interlocutor?

Basically, Hamas is saying they want a ten-year timeout to better prepare for the destruction of Israel. So.

That would also give Israel a ten-year timeout to better prepare for the annihilation of Palestine. So.

Sorry for the delay. My computer is constantly being attacked by Israeli hackers this evening.

SA said:

Is a truce equivalent to peace in your view?

Ten years of truce is equivalent ten years of peace in my view.

And if so, what is 10 year peace worth in your estimation?

Everything! The best offer I've seen for a very long time. Perhaps, ever.

Keld:

If the truce doesn't result in peace, Israel could just start over the cleansing of the Arabs again.

Why bother?

Does Israel acknowledge [the democratically elected] Hamas as a legitimate interlocutor?

Nope. Hamas refuses to accept Israel's minimum demands for entering into formal relations. Israel refuses to accept Hamas's minimum demands. One side or the other has to budge. Until then: War continues.

Why bother?

Thanks! Now I know that Israel doesn't really want peace. War continues.

Dennis P. McCann,

I find this remark (Why bother?) expressly racist. Like the Arabs are just some kind of "untermenchen" [sic].

Keld:

That would be "Hamas," not "Arabs."

It's not racist, it's political.

That was not what you responded to. Read your own reply again.

Dennis, please save 14.

Check the link in comment 14.

Yes, it goes to a site called "Jew Watch"

Wow.

Spooky:

Heartily agree.

The Torah is strictly just the Five Books of Moses - Genesis to Deuteronomy and those explicitly document Israel as the promised land of the Children of Israel.

You need to cast the net wider to include the other books of the Old Testament, particularly the prophets, which address the coming of the Messiah etc.

I'm not sufficiently expert to enter into exegesis of all that, others by all means come in. My understanding is that if you want to take a very extreme view then the role of the Messiah includes the re-establishment of Israel and collection of the dispersed from the Diaspora and bringing about an era of peace. Taking that as literally as you possibly can means you shouldn't try to establish Israel before the coming of the Messiah, as you'd be pre-empting his job. That's the line some orthodox Jews took at the time modern Israel was established and that Naturei Karta still hold to.

Everyone else has moved on, including the overwhelming vast majority of religious Jews, the rationale being that it is not up to man to second guess the ways of the Almighty. Who is to say that the modern secularist democratic State of Israel is not part of His great plan? It makes a lot of sense to have such a development presaging the arrival of the Messiah to complete the re-establishment of the Temple, ending the Diaspora etc.

The notion that having re-established Israel it would make sense to trash it so that the Messiah can recreate it all over again from scratch in the interests of the most literal possible interpretation of the scriptures is seen as utterly daft.

Just as a point of clarification. I don't think there is anything in the Prophets which explicitly indicates that a State of Israel prior to the coming of the Messiah is "wrong". It is more that the scriptures talk about the Messiah bringing back the Israel of old, so that if you take that very simplistically and literally you get a mental picture of the Messiah popping up, rallying the troops and creating Israel again where it wasn't before. If you adhere to that rigid interpretation of the odd critical sentence here and there you end up with the conclusion that Israel needs to be torn down so that the prophecies can be fulfilled in that very literal way.

Yes, there is a rationale to their argument although it is so narrow you'd have to be pretty anal to go for it.

It is not about fundamentalism. It is about narrowness of interpretation. For every adherent of Neturei Karta there are thousands of extremely orthodox (if you like "fundamentalist") Jews who dismiss the argument as an entirely unnecessary over-interpretation.

Does Zionism conflict with the teachings of the Torah?

It is more that the scriptures talk about the Messiah bringing back the Israel of old,

And Israel, in the Torah, is more than just a land. It is the people called Israel. There is no sensible way to interpret the Prophets as referring to the Land of Israel. At least, in my humble opinion, it seems more likely they were referring to the Messiah renewing and empowering the People, not drawing up borders and the like.

Then again, you get such surprising rules and revelations whenever religion becomes too orthodox or fundamental. I lay this at the feet of all religions. Fundamentalism sucks the spirit out of religion, and infuses it with the shabby substitute of rule of law.

Dennis:

Oh, well, okay then.

I hope Israel destroys the Palestinian Authority, extinguishes every member of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and I hope the Palestinian "refugees" in West Bank continue to live forever under Israeli military occupation.

That's approximately the reciprocal and equivalent of comment 13.5, isn't it?

Dennis:

Oh. And what the hell did you think he meant by that?

Dennis:

No point, really. I just hope the Israelis kill lots and lots of Palestinian terrorists. It's kinda too bad for civilian Palestinians that the terrorists surround themselves with civilians, which leads to lots of civilian deaths, but what the hay. Them's the breaks.

It's kinda too bad for civilian Palestinians that the terrorists surround themselves with civilians, which leads to lots of civilian deaths, but what the hay.

culture of violence

If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children. --- Mohandas Gandhi

Dennis:

Yeah.

The alternative is a deal, but since Palestinian terrorists would rather murder Jewish schoolgirls than deal with Israel, "cold" it is.

Dennis:

Did it ever occur to you that they may have no other way of dealing with Israel?

No, it didn't. Because it's not true.

And here I always thought that the definition of "a sovereign nation" was one that could protect it's borders and it's peoples. Neither of them are doing great at that right now. Palestine worse with the 40 to 1 casualty rate.

Forest

Right. Like Islam. I went round and round with one Viner who refused to see that Islam refers to the religion, the people, and the land, together or separately, in much the same way that Israel does the same. And this guy is an ardent supporter of Israel, so it's not as if he was unfamiliar with the concept.

Probably because I have always used the word Islam to relate to the beliefs of the religion, not to the people. In the same way, many people claim they are anti-Israel, or whatever, but that does not mean they are anti-Israeli.

I guess I wondered why you seeded it because the existence of anti-Zionist sects and invitations to speak to Arabs is old news - maybe you've missed it in the past.

There is a religious argument to be made against a Jewish state - but it is a fundamentalist (i.e. literalist) argument and not all Orthodoxy is fundamentalism. The problem may lie in defining the word "Jewish" as it applies to Israel - a Jewish state is defined not by the religion but by a people who call themselves Jews, and in many cases call themselves non-religious - how zany is that? I like the description put forth by some wag: Jews are a people divided by a common religion.

In terms of the word Israel, a common mode of thought is that there is Am Yisrael, the people, Eretz Yisrael, the land, and Medinat Yisrael, the state. Any reasonable solution to the political problems of the region faces that fact that these three concepts of Israel only partially overlap, and that a complete peace depends on accepting partial solutions (if there even is a solution at all, i'm about to plow into Benny Morris' newest book, and hope to report back).

What strikes me as pot stirring - not by you necessarily - is the word dismantle.

What I should add is that I think any religious arguments are basically irrelevant to statecraft, in case that wasn't clear.

You just gotta love Hamas TV. I mean, ever since MTV went downhill (no more music videos!) what else is there to watch? Yep, you guessed it...Hamas TV! They've got all sorts of great programs for kids and adults alike! Need some inspiration for self-martyrdom? Suicide bombing? Need some good old-fashioned Jew-bashing? It's all there for your viewing pleasure, on Hamas TV!

Hmmm. They don't make shows like they used to.....

The problem may lie in defining the word "Jewish" as it applies to Israel - a Jewish state is defined not by the religion but by a people who call themselves Jews, and in many cases call themselves non-religious - how zany is that?

There is also the point that Jews are a people who have also been defined by others. It was stated earlier in this thread quite well by Jeremiah9 the danger of assuming assimilation into a society when the mobacracy starts demonizing your "other-ness".

There is a religious argument to be made against a Jewish state - but it is a fundamentalist (i.e. literalist) argument and not all Orthodoxy is fundamentalism.

I get what you mean Miss J. For me, as a mere observer, I see the argument as pointless anyway. Israel is a legal state and has been for 60 years. So whatever reasons for and against as understood by different Jewish sects are largely irrelevant as far as Israel's right to exist. It does exist and should remain so. Nothing can take that away.

However, there are aspects of Zionism that do prevent long term solution for the region. Like the right to return? Such aspects do need to be out on the table as part of long term solutions to the region. The simple fact remains that there just is not enough land to support all people when you factor in rights of the Jewish Diaspora.

Dennis - one of the links in my earlier comment was merely to a comment in this thread by Hajj which linked to a Jewish peace movement - Gush Shalom. It was set up by Uri Avnery, a German Jew who arrived in Haifa during the Nazi reign (but just before the worst of the Holocaust). Uri's time in Israel includes a long stint on the Knesset; his work regardless of which side of the debate anyone is deserves serious study.

The reason why I bring it up is because the background that Gush Shalom (and Avnery's own bio) covers provides a lot of the alternative Jewish views that this thread is intended to uncover. Avnery also challenges some fundamental aspects of Zionism when Israel was founded. Hajj's link is at #6.3

If all that's true, then he's an @!$%#. But I didn't give him any legitimacy.

Isn't it funny how quick you are to deem suspect comments from respected Middle East historian Bernard Lewis, but you fail to research who this al-Qaradawi character is, or the extremist nature of IslamOnline?

In fact, he hasn't even been mentioned in this thread until now, I believe.

I mentioned him in the comment you deleted.

That guy is mentioned only once in the article, in passing. He's not relevant to this discussion.

The fallacy here is that the relationship these rabbis have to other people is irrelevant. This is not true. Relationships between people are alway relevant.

The discussion, seed, article, etc. are indeed irrelevant.

Enough, guys.

Deleting comments made against you is perfectly acceptable Dennis. But deleting comments because you think they aren't relevant is censorship. Plain and simple. Refute their relevance. Deleting them is censorship--refutation is sublime.

Dennis:

Sheikh Qaradawi was mentioned more than once in the article and is pictured with the two rabbis.

Maybe you don't like it that Sheikh Qaradawi is "on topic" in an article YOU SEEDED but the fact of the matter, he is.

I don't like Sheikh Qaradawi. I hope he dies of cancer if the Mossad doesn't assassinate him first.

Dennis, just as I called into question your inability to recognize extremists, I call into question these Rabbis' association with a man who advocates suicide bombing attacks against Israelis. Not only were my comments NOT "a series of statements about you", they were not off topic.

One of my comments, which you deleted, was solely about a Muslim religiously objecting to anti-Zionism!

Hey look, it's a Muslim who uses the Qur'an to support the claim that Israel belongs to the Jews!

The Qur'an in Chapter 5: 20-21 states quite clearly: Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you , and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."

Off topic?

The first comment was, as you know. After that, no, not about me.

Okay, so why were the other comments not about you deleted?

OK, so you found a Muslim professor who says that the Qur'an supports Zionism. OK. But what does that have to do with what these rabbis are saying about the Torah, because that's the topic here.

According to some fringe Jews, current Zionism goes against the Torah. According to some fringe Muslims, anti-Zionism goes against the Qur'an. The only thing this proves is that there are dissenting voices among any community. The population of Israel is not going to wake up tomorrow and vacate Israel on the basis of the two Rabbis' opinion, nor are many, let alone a majority of Muslims going to reconsider their anti-Israel position based on this professor.

Closer to Israel, yes, but I doubt Indonesians, for example, care all that much, really. I know that Turks aren't anti-Israel at all. They're allies.

As is India, the world's second largest for Muslims in their population.

Yes, but that's not Judaism, which is what these Rabbis are arguing. Their objection is religious, and in that debate, public opinion is virtually meaningless. What I'd like to know is what other Rabbinical scholars thing about this argument.

First, it's not Judaism in the same way that the Vatican isn't Catholicism. The Vatican is still hugely important to Christianity. In fact, Zionism is much more important to Judaism, because the Torah gives the Jewish people (Israel) the land of Israel. Thus Zionism is inextricably tied to Judaism in ways that are extremely deep and meaningful.

Second, most Rabbinical scholars would say that this is an extreme viewpoint these anti-Israel Rabbis espouse. Since most Jews are Zionists, you can be pretty certain that most of their spiritual leaders are too.

Second, most Rabbinical scholars would say that this is an extreme viewpoint these anti-Israel Rabbis espouse.

I'd be interested in seeing that, because that would refute their argument much better than the opinions of people who aren't as qualified as these guys are.

You don't think the fact that half the world's rabbis live in Israel is proof enough? That Orthodox rabbis are the top dogs there? That conservative judaism (or masorti) makes up 40% of US jewry and is by its very nature Zionist?

Ironically, both sides are partly correct. There are different types of Zionism, primarily political Zionism (representing Herzl and the modern state of Israel) and religious Zionism (representing the messiah and the future state of Israel). There are prophecies that the Jews would return to their ancestral homeland in a condition of unbelief. The messiah (originating in the Dispersion outside political Israel) would come later and lead messianic Israel (from the Nile to the Euphrates) to belief and the realization of its true glory.

It would be a mistake to dismantle political Israel because its existence sets the stage for the messiah's coming.

It is the belief that Israel should exist. That is all. That is Zionism today.

And-- what a lot of people overlook-- some Zionists are not Jews at all. (In fact, putside of Israel-- my guess would be that the majority of Zionists are not Jews!

How about the Talmud? is this also received by The Prophet Moses. How about the Prophecy of Oded Yinon.

It seems that there is a trend in this thread. It seems to me, that anti-Zionists on this thread, are attempting to make a point against the legitimacy of Israel, based on the writings of "fringe" Jewish Rabbis.

This is very interesting. It is almost like saying, 2% of the Jews in the World, are vehemently opposed to the Modern State of Israel, and "we" are going to accept their opinion and not the opinion of the Jewish Masses. Whether their opinion is being accepted or not is questionable, but their opinion is clearly being evaluated here as potentially valid. I'm not one to tell somebody what they can and can't believe, but I will tell you that to try and use Jewish writings to refute the validity of the State of Israel is asinine.

Dennis:

The rabbis are lunatics, those who agree with them are credulously stupid, the sheikh ally is a terrorist-sympathizer thug and the article itself is too trivial to even dignify a serious response.

But since you insist: "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose." Ironically enough, also said of a Jew.

And in all of this, I still haven't been able to get an answer to the central question... Has anyone been able to refute their position? Prove them wrong?

Don't see how I didn't. I provided links to two articles that refuted your article. This plus the vast majority of Jews should speak volumes. Later, though, just for the heck of it, I'm getting out my Torah and I'll go through and find all the little pieces that refute these nutjobs and write up a little article about it. It's just time-consuming work, you know, Torah study. Hence the vastness of the Talmud, and other Jewish scholarship and law.

#28.7

Hi Jack. Who cares!

Raat:

Not me!

You cannot unite the world religions on the platform of Humanism. Humanism is a philosophy that at its extreme denies the existence of God. The monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are "revealed"; i.e., they receive their authority and teachings from God, as mediated through His prophets. Humanism, contrarily, is derived, not revealed.

So, as a nonbeliever I am not in this equation?
That is a sad statement.

It is important to know your presuppositions before you engage in a debate in order to minimize miscommunication. Would not agree?

How can a non-believer presume to have the answers to religious questions?

I have read both religious texts.
I don't judge.
I accept every as to who they are, not what they are.
Plus I have other religious texts.

Ugly yes...but is there something of value in it? Maybe.
My last post right above makes me think about the inadequacies of words.
Elie Wiesel, the Witness, the Survivor, the Teacher, the Author, the Nobel Prize Winner,
who dedicated his life to preserving and documenting the history of the Holocaust,
Spoke often of his frustrations with words. He spoke of the power of Silence.
He didn't speak about the horrors he saw and experienced until ten years after he was liberated.
And the first thing he wrote was Night.
Even then, he says, what good are words, when the reader will still not "truly understand" the Days of Night.
Well, we talk and talk here on Newsvine, about this and about that, we all have different experiences, and come from different places, but it seems to me that when you get so hung up on a single word, you really lose out on what that person might really be talking about.