Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on July 23, 2020

Photo Credit: Jewish Press

After conquering the Ottoman Turks in Eretz Yisrael, Britain was awarded the Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations. Pursuant to that award, it appointed Herbert Samuel (1870-1963) as the first High Commissioner of Palestine (1920-25), making him the first Jew to rule the Land of Israel in 2,000 years.

In that capacity, he extended an invitation to Winston Churchill (1874-1965), then the United Kingdoms Colonial Secretary, to visit Eretz Yisrael to see the land and discuss developing problems there, particularly the Arab desire to deport all Jews.

Exhibited here is the Order of Celebration issued by the Education Department of the Zionist Commission to Palestine for the Tuesday, 19 Adar II (March 29), 1921 reception for Churchill. It provides detailed instructions for schoolchildren and their teachers to follow, including dressing in holiday clothes and carrying school banners to the field of assembly, and the program, which included the singing of Techezakna, Hatikvah, and the British national anthem sung by the Blind Education Choir.

During his (only) visit to Eretz Yisrael, Churchill also participated in a palm tree-planting ceremony at the new Hebrew University in Jerusalem at which Chief Rabbis Avraham Isaac Hacohen Kook and Yaakov Meir presented him with a Torah scroll. Exhibited here is a Yaakov Ben-Dov photograph (note his ink-stamp, Y. Ben-Dov Bezalel-Yerushalayim on the margin of the card) in which Churchill stands next to High Commissioner Samuel; in the background is the tree Churchill planted at Hebrew University. Speaking on that occasion, he stated:

Personally, my heart is full of sympathy for Zionism. This sympathy has existed for a long time, since 12 years ago, when I was in contact with the Manchester Jews. I believe that the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine will be a blessing to the whole world, a blessing to the Jewish race scattered all around the world, and a blessing to Great Britain. I firmly believe that it will be a blessing also to the inhabitants of this country without distinction of race and religion.

Churchill, who saw the dark side of extremism within Islam and was already distrustful of Arab nationalism, could not help but contrast the overwhelming love extended to him by Jewish throngs everywhere he went with the hostility with which he was received by the Arabs, who held violent demonstrations against the British Mandate and screamed calls to murder Jews.

En route to Lydda after leaving Jerusalem, Churchill visited Tel Aviv and was most impressed by what he observed. He also visited the city of Rishon LeZion, about which he later effusively wrote:

From the most inhospitable soil, surrounded on every side by barrenness and the most miserable form of cultivation, I was driven into a fertile and thriving country estate where the scanty soil gave place to good crops and cultivation, and then vineyards and finally to the most beautiful, luxurious orange groves, all created in 20 or 30 years by the exertions of the Jewish community who live there

I defy anybody, after seeing work of this kind, achieved by so much labor, effort and skill, to say that the British Government, having taken up the position it has, could cast it all aside and leave it to be rudely and brutally overturned by the incursion of a fanatical attack by the Arab population from outside.

As Colonial Secretary (1921-22), Churchill was responsible for determining the future status of the Jewish national home in Eretz Yisrael, and after inspecting the agrarian, technological, and urban successes of the Zionist enterprise throughout the land during his visit there, he became convinced that the establishment of a Jewish state had great value not only to Britain, but to civilization in general.

In a historic rejoinder to Musa Kazim el Husseini, the former mayor of Jerusalem, a relative of the Jew-hating Mufti Haj-Amin el-Husseini, and a prominent Arab leader, Churchill wrote:

You have asked me in the first place to repudiate the Balfour Declaration and to veto immigration of Jews into Palestine. It is not in my power to do so, nor, if it were in my power, would it be my wish. The British Government have passed their word, by the mouth of Mr. Balfour, that they will view with favor the establishment of a National Home for Jews in Palestine, and that inevitably involves the immigration of Jews into the country. Moreover, it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national center and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for the Jews and good for the British Empire

The British Government have promised that what is called the Zionist movement shall have a fair chance in this country, and the British Government will do what is necessary to secure that fair chance. You can see with your own eyes in many parts of this country the work which has already been done by Jewish colonies; how sandy wastes have been reclaimed and thriving farms and orangeries planted in their stead

In his 1921 Report on the Middle East Conference, Churchill predicted that if the Jews continue their work in building a Jewish state, Eretz Yisrael would become the biblical promised land, a land flowing with milk and honey, in which sufferers of all races and religions will find a rest from their sufferings.

Many British parliamentarians, objecting to Churchills strong Zionist positions, endeavored to rescind the Balfour Declaration. In 1922, some two-thirds of the House of Lords voted for rescission, declaring that a Jewish homeland was unacceptable to the sentiments and wishes of the great majority of the people of Palestine.

In a speech before the House of Commons on July 4, 1922, which many critics characterize as one of the celebrated orators greatest speeches, Churchill passionately argued the Zionist cause, concluding, If, over the portals of the new Jerusalem, you are going to inscribe the legend, No Israelite need apply, then I hope the House will permit me to confine my attention exclusively to Irish matters.

Due to Churchills efforts, the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly, by a vote of 292-35, to set aside the decision of the House of Lords and to continue British policy as per the Balfour declaration.

Characterizing Zionism as an inspiring movement and describing himself as an old Zionist, Churchill expended efforts on behalf of Jews and Israel that were exceptional, sincere, and persistent, leaving behind a long record of activism for Jewish causes.

As early as 1904, he promoted the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Eretz Yisrael as the only solution to Russian pogroms against Jews. Running for a seat from Manchester North West, which had a large Jewish immigrant population, Churchill became intimately familiar with Jewish interests and formed a strong bond with British Jews.

He attacked his government for its Aliens Bill, which sought to severely limit Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe, and he was later a lone voice taking on virtually his entire government in opposing Britains infamous White Paper (1939) he called it a plain breach of a solemn obligation which greatly reduced the number of Jews permitted to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael.

As prime minister of England during World War II, Churchill battled anti-Zionist British officials and frequently intervened to ease the escape of Jewish refugees from Europe and to allow those reaching Eretz Yisrael to remain there. Among other things, he instructed Royal Navy vessels not to intercept ships suspected of bringing in illegal Jewish immigrants (1939-40); successfully pressured the Franco regime to reopen its border to Jewish refugees fleeing the Reich (April 1943); and indefatigably fought hostility within the British military establishment to create the Jewish Brigade (1944).

He actively urged FDR to support the creation of a Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael, reminding him, I am strongly wedded to the Zionist policy, of which I was one of the authors. When he learned that Jews arriving from Hungary were being gassed at Auschwitz, he immediately put into place plans to bomb the railway from Hungary.

(Why he did not extend that strategy to bombing the rail tracks at Auschwitz remains unclear, but historians argue they may have been out of range for British bombers although they werent out of range for American bombers.)

After the war, Churchill sought to arm Jews in Eretz Yisrael against the Arabs, and he worked hard to fashion a postwar regional settlement that would include a Zionist state, which he was prepared to impose on the Palestinian Arabs by force, if necessary. Even after the bombing of the King David Hotel on July 22, 1946, which he unambiguously condemned, he argued that British promises had generated great optimism amongst the Jews of Eretz Yisrael and that the governments betrayal had understandably caused great resentment.

His faith in the future of a Zionist state bordered on the messianic, as he declared Jerusalem must be the [Jews] only ultimate goal. That it will someday be achieved is one of the few certainties of the future.

After Israels War of Independence, Churchill pronounced the Jewish state a great event in world history and sought to push the British government to adopt a more pro-Israel foreign policy. Characterizing Jews as the sons of the prophets dwelling in Zion, he considered the establishment of Israel as one of the most hopeful and encouraging adventures of the 20th century.

When the British government initially refused to recognize Israel, Churchill bitterly criticized it in a speech to the House of Commons in which he maintained that the coming into being of a Jewish State in Palestine is an event in world history to be viewed in the perspective not of a generation or a century, but in the perspective of a thousand, two thousand or even three thousand years.

He severely excoriated the Atlee government and, particularly, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin whom he unabashedly and publicly called an anti-Semite for refusing to accord the nascent nation prompt recognition.

In 1950, Churchill, upon becoming British prime minister for a second time, received a warm congratulatory message from his old friend Chaim Weizmann, now president of Israel, whom he described as like an Old Testament prophet. In his response, Churchill wrote: The wonderful exertions which Israel is making in these times of difficulty are cheering to an old Zionist like me.

Notwithstanding this remarkable and extensive record of Zionist support, some commentators based primarily upon allegations that Churchill wrote some anti-Semitic articles (although the weight of evidence suggests he did not actually write them) argue that Churchill was an anti-Semite.

Churchills attitude toward Jews may perhaps best be summarized by this quote from a 1920 article, which he unquestionably wrote: Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

However, some evidence does exist supporting the proposition that Churchills wife, Clementine, and his mother, Jenny Spencer-Churchill, were anti-Semites. There is no record of Sir Winston reproving Clementine for a 1931 letter to him in which she provided a negative description of New Yorks Jews, but he did chide his mother for describing Count de Bendern in an odious fashion and for publishing an offensive, anti-Semitic anecdote in her memoirs.

In the rare August 28, 1947 letter exhibited here, Clementine responds to a request that Winston intercede in the Palestine issue with the British government:

I understand your sorrow about all that is happening in connection with Palestine and I regret that I must tell you that my Husband does not think he could intervene with the present Government with any success.

This letter was written at a time when tensions between British soldiers and the Jewish population of Eretz Yisrael rose as the Jewish underground armies renewed efforts to overthrow British rule. Churchill had lost his influence in Parliament when the Labor Party was roundly defeated by the Conservative Party, and Clement Attlee, no friend of the Jews, became prime minister.

* * * * *

The Winston Churchill Forest in the hills of Nazareth was dedicated on April 6, 1967, and, on November 4, 2012, a bronze sculpture of the British prime minister was dedicated at the Montefiore Gardens over Migdal David in Jerusalem to mark the 95th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration and the 90th anniversary of Churchills visit to Jerusalem.

Churchills death in 1965 was mourned by Jews in Israel and around the world, and both Ben-Gurion and then-president Zalman Shazar flew to London to attend the state funeral and pay their respects. (Their attendance at the public funeral on Shabbat was not without controversy in Jewish circles; then-Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie walked from his hotel to attend the service.)

Exhibited here is a program for a memorial service for Churchill held at the Yeshurun Central Synagogue in Jerusalem (February 1, 1965). The program included the kindling of memorial lights and recitation of Psalm 46, addresses by Chief Rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman and Minister for Religious Affairs Zerach Warthaftig, and a closing with Psalm 23.

See the article here:
The Zionism Of Winston Churchill - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The Zionism Of Winston Churchill – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 23, 2020

Worshipers pray in distance from each other at the Western Wall in Jerusalems Old City, amid coronavirus restrictions, March 26, 2020. Photo: Reuters / Ammar Awad.

Israels enemies today often ignore that Zionism and Pan-Africanism have intersecting histories. But they share one great commonality both are international movements committed to unifying diaspora peoples to build up their own, newly-independent homeland.

My choice for the godfather of Pan-Africanism is Edward Wilmot Blyden. His trajectory ultimately led him to visit the Holy Land, whose destiny he envisaged as linked to that marvelous movement called Zionism.

Born to free parents on Charlotte-Amalie, capital of St. Thomas, Blyden prided himself on his pure African ancestry, yet also prized his close cultural ties with Jews, beginning with members of Amalies 400-strong Jewish community, which produced such expatriate luminaries as Impressionist painter Camille Pissarro.

Young Blyden played on Synagogue Hill, watched the Yom Kippur services from outside the congregation, and struck up a youthful friendship with David Cardoze (Cardozo), later a rabbi, who taught him the rudiments of Hebrew.

July 23, 2020 3:58 am

Discriminated against when he journeyed to the United States in 1850, Blyden was sent as an agent of the American Colonization Society to Liberia, the American Back to Africa experiment that in 1847 became an independent nation. He devoted the rest of his life to Africa as an educator, publicist, and diplomat, including an 1866 trip to Jerusalem that he wrote about in From West Africa to Palestine (1873). Blyden didnt visit early Alliance Israelite Universelle projects, but nevertheless predicted that Jews are to be restored to the land of their fathers once the misrule of the Turks was overcome.

Blyden longed for the emergence among African-Americans of leaders to mobilize the selective return of some Blacks to help regenerate Africa. He was fascinated by Herzls meteoric rise as Zionisms new Moses. His response to Der Judenstaat and the First and Second Zionist Congresses, held in 1897 and 1898, was a pamphlet, The Jewish Question (1898), published with the help of Liverpool merchant and African trader Louis Solomon.

Blyden wrote that the history of the African race their enslavement, persecution, proscription, and sufferings closely resembles that of the Jews. He also asked for Jewish support of Africa: If the world owes an immense debt to the Jews, the Jews as well as the rest of mankind owe an immense debt to Africa; for it was upon that soil that a few nomads from Western Asia settled down, and, in the furnace of affliction grew to be a nation. Now, Africa appeals to the Jew.

Unburdened by antisemitism, Blyden was also unprejudiced against Muslims. He believed that Islam might still contribute to Africas liberation.

Blyden pointed the way for Pan-African leaders such as W.E.B. Du Bois, Marcus Garvey, George Padmore, and Kwame Nkrumah all intrigued by Zionism, but not all friendly toward Jews.

Blyden may be newly relevant as Israel continues to improve its relations with Africa in the 21st century.

Historian Harold Brackman is coauthor with Ephraim Isaac of From Abraham to Obama: A History of Jews, Africans, and African-Americans (Africa World Press, 2015).

Here is the original post:
The Connection Between Pan-Africanism and Zionism | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com - Algemeiner

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The Connection Between Pan-Africanism and Zionism | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com – Algemeiner
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 23, 2020

Support for Palestine and opposing the racist Israeli state is not antisemitic (Pic: Guy Smallman)

The left faces further assaults from the right following a huge pay-out and apology to so-called whistleblowers who appeared in a BBC documentary last year.

Labours former right wing general secretary Ian McNicol has said he is suing the party. It follows a leaked report that appeared to show his role in undermining Jeremy Corbyn. And John Ware, who made the documentary Is Labour antisemitic?, has said he will sue Corbyn.

It comes after Labour, under current leader Keir Starmers leadership, apologised for criticising the documentary last year. The party also paid out a figure of around 180,000 to Ware and former Labour staffers who appeared in the documentary, in a court settlement.

The apology and settlement effectively concede the documentarys accusation that Corbyns left wing politics encouraged antisemitism to grow inside Labour. In written apologies, Labour said, Antisemitism has been a stain on the Labour Party in recent years.

If we are to restore the trust of the Jewish community, we must demonstrate a change of leadership.

It comes ahead of the imminent publication of an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into Labours handling of antisemitism accusations.

Many left wing Labour members are furious at the decision. They say Labour had strong legal advice that it could have won the cases in court.

And the leaked report appears to show that some who appeared in the documentary worked to undermine Corbyn and disrupt the partys handling of antisemitism cases.

Yet the strongest response to the documentary is to refute its central allegationthat the lefts opposition to Israel encouraged antisemitism.

The whole documentary rested on a very dangerous conflation of Jewish people with the state of Israel and its founding ideology, Zionism. This is the idea that Jewish people should have a state of their own in Palestine, and that in this state they should be the majority.

Exclusion

It justified the ethnic cleansing of some 850,000 Palestinians from their homes when Israel was created in 1948. And it justifies the racist exclusion of Palestinians from Israel today.

Many Jews oppose Zionism because of this. Yet in the documentary Ware simply said that criticism of Zionism is offensive to Jewish people because Zionism is the project that established Israel as a secure Jewish homeland.

It made Zionism appear as something integral to being Jewish, and therefore anti-Zionism as essentially antisemitic. The lefts opposition to Israel was presented as the root of the problemand clamping down on it the solution.

The documentary featured footage of Corbyn at a Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration leading a chant of, We are all Palestinians.

Some of those who appeared in the documentaryincluding those who received pay-outswent along with the argument. One, Mike Creighton, called opposition to Israel an obsession that just spills over all the time into antisemitism.

He said Corbyn could have dealt with antisemitism with a significant speech on the issue of the Middle East, particularly saying that Israel has a right to exist.

The Labour left keep losing the battle over accusations of antisemitism because they keep refusing to challenge the claim that opposition to Israel is antisemitic.

The accusation is more than an attack on the Labour leftits an attack on Palestine solidarity as a whole. The fight against it cant be won by trying to overcome the rottenness of Labours internal politics.

There must be a fight to defend the right to call Israel a racist state, and to resist the central accusation that opposition to Israel is antisemitic.

The rest is here:
Labour payouts after antisemitism claims will mean more assaults on the left - Socialist Worker

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Labour payouts after antisemitism claims will mean more assaults on the left – Socialist Worker
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 23, 2020

Social protests have been gaining momentum over the past few days, but Israel's Arab community has been hesitant to join in. Although many Arab towns are suffering from the worsening economic crisis caused by the country's coronavirus response, prominent figures are not calling on the public to participate in the demonstrations taking place throughout Israel.

On Tuesday, protesters, many of them Arabs, gathered in Haifa for a small demonstration initiated by people working in the dining and tourism sector in the city. A few dozen people participated in a rally and march held in the German Colony, but it was a far cry from the masses gathered at Jerusalem's Balfour Street.

The key institutions representing the Arab community the Arab Higher Monitoring Committee, the Arab Mayors Committee, the Joint List and social nonprofits which have long been main forces calling for protests, have avoided joining the demonstrations. Most of the calls to do so have been coming not from political parties or official organizations, but from individuals, among them Joint List Chairman Ayman Odeh.

The questions of whether to join in the protests and what part should Arab parties play in them have risen over the past few days in the Arab community. Activists from Hadash,a far-left party that predominantly appeals to Arab voters and that is part of theJoint List, joined in Tuesday's Haifa protest. But some of the restaurateurs had reservations with the attempt to politicize the demonstration, as they said. Chef Husam Abbas, one of the owners of the al-Barbur restaurant, who attended the demonstration, said participation is essential, but added that the struggle must be a social one alone in order to bring out the public from all facets of society.

Fida Tabony, a member of the Hadash secretariat who participated in the demonstration, disagreed, saying that the political connection should not be removed from the protest. "The attempt to erase this aspect means that its influence on the dialogue and messaging is still unclear," she said.

There is a consensus in Arab society about the destructive effect of the economic crisis and the need to express their stance and participate in the protest, but Prof. Amal Jamal from Tel Aviv University's school of political science points out that there are hurdles that keep Arabs from joining in. The Israeli protests wave the Israeli flag, something that blocks effective Arab participation," he said. "We need to remember that Arab citizens are protesting discrimination on a national and not just civil basis. This emphasis completely contradicts the desire of most of the Jewish protesters to reduce the centrality of political issues, said Jamal.

At the same time, Mohammad Khalaila, who researches the Arab community, has called on the public not to wait for requests from organizers or Arab organizations to join the protests, despite the symbols there that may give them pause. He said the presence of the Arab public at these protests is a promise to create a shared political situation in contradiction to the ideology of the right: We must learn from what happened in the social protest in 2011. The Arab publics ambivalent attitude to the protest was reflected in its results.

Khalaila added that he is not relying on Arab parties, most of which he said do not believe that they must participate in leading a political change in Israel and are afraid of blurring their national agenda.

Economist Dr. Sami Miari raises another explanation: The parties are avoiding calling on the public to protest out of political motivations, in order not to sabotage the chances of advancing a financial plan for the Arab community. The strategy of the Arab parties is wrong," he said. "It is their duty to participate in the struggle and to have the voice be heard of a substantial part of the country's citizens, who are economically disadvantaged by a piggish capitalist policy.

Former Joint List Chairman Jamal Zahalka says that Israeli Jews are not ready to call for real equality as part of the protest. "We will only participate if they dont force offensive slogans and flags on us, and unfortunately it doesnt seem like that now, he said. "Joining in the protest needs to be under the umbrella of justice for everyone without any difference of religion, race or gender and not under the Zionist umbrella. If the protests do not include this messaging, "The situation at this stage is protests in Arab towns and nearby junctions," he added.

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

The Arab public's relationship with apolitical struggles has been limited and hesitant, especially in recent years. Sociologist Dr. Maha Karkabi Sabah said that "Looking over time, it is possible to see that the Arabs, despite their socioeconomic distress, are hesitant to be partners in every apolitical protest and remain behind."

She added, "It is impossible to separate the political from the social, so it is no surprise that there is no call from the Jews for Arab participation in the social demonstrations. It seems that the other side is also uninterested in blurring the national lines. Even when the struggle can cross every possible social border, it seems that the exclusion of the Arab minority by the Jewish majority does not pass over protests of this sort as well."

Between the supporters and cynics, it is already clear that the voices of the protests are rising toward the Arab public. This is the same public that took to the streets en masse last October to protest the lack of public safety in their communities, and caught their leadership up in it as well. This is a test for that same leadership, who will prove how much they are willing to initiate a struggle, as well as for the Israeli public and the protest leaders, who will clarify if they are prepared to include Arab citizens and their demands in the fight for justice.

See the original post here:
Why Israeli Arabs are staying on the sidelines of country's protest movement - Haaretz

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Why Israeli Arabs are staying on the sidelines of country’s protest movement – Haaretz
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 23, 2020

Bari Weisss letter of July 14 announcing her resignation as editor of the New York Times opinion page has received considerable publicity and has won praise from prominent right-wing spokespersons, including Donald Trump, Jr., political commentators Ben Shapiro and Bill Maher, and U.S. Republican senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Kelly Loeffler. In that letter, posted on her website, Weiss accuses her colleagues of bullying her and silencing writers whose views clash with the Timess orthodoxy. Intellectual curiosity, she claims, is now a liability at The Times. These claims are breathtakingly dishonest, coming as they do from an editor who has herself engaged in systematically barring from the Times any op-ed or letter to the editor contrary to the orthodoxy of the pro-Israel establishment she represents.

Although Weiss emphasizes the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic societyprinciples I fully supportnothing could better illustrate tribalism than the censorship of voices criticizing Israel or pointing out the inherently undemocratic nature of a state that privileges Jews over non-Jews. A flagrant example of the tribalism that the Times opinion page exhibited under Weisss editorship is its publication of an op-ed titled On the Frontlines of Progressive Anti-Semitism by Blake Flayton, a sophomore at George Washington University, and its failure to publish a single one of the letters that poured in from Jewish students at George Washington and other universities contradicting Flaytons allegations about both antisemitism among progressives and about quasi-universal support for Israel among young Jews. Frankly, the Times is much better off without Bari Weiss. Perhaps now the Op-Ed and letters to the editor page can finally begin reflecting the remarkable shift that has been occurring in Jewish attitudes toward Israel and Palestinians, as indicated by Peter Beinarts two articles, I No Longer Believe in a Jewish State, and Yavne: A Jewish Case for Equality in Israel-Palestine and by Eric Altermans In New York, Zionism and Liberalism Faced OffAnd Liberalism Won.

Both Beinart and Alterman describe a long process of grappling with the contradictions between their ideal of Israel as a haven for Jews that could also be a democracy for its Palestinian citizens and their growing awareness of the brutal repression Palestinians endure under Israeli rule. Confronted by more and more evidence that With each new election, irrespective of which parties enter the government, Israel has continued subsidizing Jewish settlement in a territory in which Palestinians lack citizenship, due process, free movement, and the right to vote for the government that dominates their lives, Beinart concludes: The painful truth is that the project to which liberal Zionists like myself have devoted ourselves for decadesa state for Palestinians separated from a state for Jewshas failed. . . . It is time for liberal Zionists to abandon the goal of Jewish-Palestinian separation and embrace the goal of Jewish-Palestinian equality. Similarly, Alterman acknowledges: As Israel grows increasingly illiberalembracing not only annexation but also official racism, theocratic governance, and increasingly anti-democratic restrictions on the freedoms of its Arab minority . . . Liberal Zionisma cause to which I have committed myself for my entire adult lifehas come to look like a contradiction.

Altermans article actually comments on another example of what his subtitle calls a sea change for American Jews: the defeat of Eliot Engel, the powerful chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, by Jamaal Bowman, an African American former middle school principal. As Alterman notes, Engel used his position to deliver one hundred percent support for Israel in lockstep with AIPAC and the ultra-conservative Zionist Organization of America, while neglecting the needs of his constituents, nearly 60 percent of whom are Black and Latino. Bowman, in contrast, balanced his commitment to the right of Israelis to live in safety and peace with an affirmation that Palestinians are entitled to the same human rights, safety from violence and self-determination in a state of their own. Instead of his stands costing him the election, as it probably would have in years past, however, Bowman won in a landslide, and Engel did not even carry the districts Jewish voters. As Alterman explains, the result showed that Israel had lost its centrality among constituents who were reeling under the threat of the pandemic and inspired by the politics of racial reawakening. They also showed that whereas in the past, liberals chose just to make an exception for Israel while sticking with the rest of their left-leaning agenda, this time liberalism had clearly won out over Zionism.

In short, change is in the air, and the pro-Israel lobby can no longer stamp it out by using its henchpersons to censor and malign opposing voices. This is the real significance of Bari Weisss resignation from the New York Times.

Originally posted here:
The real significance of Bari Weiss's resignation from the New York Times - Mondoweiss

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The real significance of Bari Weiss’s resignation from the New York Times – Mondoweiss
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 23, 2020

Israeli leftist demonstration, photo via Facebook page of Annexation Is Intifada

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,657, July 23, 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Many are wondering: how have retired leading members of the Israeli defense establishment come to locate themselves on the political left, at times even on the radical left? Having devoted their professional lives to the task of defending the country and carrying out the orders of the political echelon, they are now spearheading various anti movements.

The Israeli defense establishments retired senior officers and officials are an elite group. Contrary to what one might expect, members of this elite now fly the flag of the progressive left and its rigidly enforced politically correct culture. They support the lefts hijacking of the public agenda by aggrandizing the enlightened we whose humanity purportedly stands in stark contrast to that of the ignorant herd. This state of mind is also on display among media people, who routinely aim their derision at senior Likud ministers and politicians.

The English philosopher John Locke, considered the father of liberalism, gave the world the enlightened principles that led humanity to adopt the idea that there are natural rights to life, freedom, and property. In its modern form, liberalism is concerned with relations between citizen and government, emphasizing freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and so on. Is this the intellectual authority that guides Israels self-glorified opinion leaders? It doesnt look that way, though the opponents of the right-wing ideology led by Benjamin Netanyahu claim to be united in their devotion to a progressive universalist worldview.

For the enlightened anti contingent, Netanyahu is a demon who must be fought by any legitimate means necessary, even if those measures verge on anarchy. From their standpoint, the same dark thread runs through the corruption allegations, the greed economy, the occupation, and of course the annexation plan for the West Bank. Ousting Netanyahu would supposedly burst the dam that stands between all that is evil on earth and a new era in which the longed-for progressive utopia becomes reality.

It would be naive to think the guild of the has-beens just wants to do some housecleaning, affirm their integrity, and expunge corruption. They aim for something much higher: a phased transition in the political domain, or, to put it more explicitly, an embedding of the ideology of the left, which would entail separating from the Palestinians via a two-state solution along the lines of the June 1967 borders. This lofty aim has a strong tailwind from semi-governmental elements in the liberal West. One might characterize this mindset as an updated version of post-Zionism that values universal principles ahead of historical justice or a national bond with the Land of Israel.

The path to this yearned-for objective is paved by broadcasting blunt and resonant messages across the media spectrum. This is not difficult as most leading media outlets sympathize with the progressive position. Their coverage is thus almost invariably biased.

The military world has its own term for these efforts at consciousness engineering: psychological warfare. The retired generals familiarity with this technique gives them an advantage. Their ability to make sophisticated use of this tool to suit their own purposes works as a kind of force multiplier.

The political right maintains that a solid majority of the Jewish population of Israel supports Netanyahu, and trends indicate that that support is rising. The noisy campaigns of the enlightened has-beens are making a mark, but it appears to be mainly among those who are already persuaded. Their awareness of this fact perturbs them no end, further aggravating their urge to protest and even providing an intellectual justification for their violation of the rules of the democratic game.

View PDF

This is an edited version of an article published in Israel Hayom on July 6.

Dr. Raphael G. Bouchnik-Chen is a retired colonel who served as a senior analyst in IDF Military Intelligence.

Read the original here:
What Is Driving the Has-Beens? - besacenter.org

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on What Is Driving the Has-Beens? – besacenter.org
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 23, 2020

Israel has been trying for years to normalise relations with its neighbours, especially in the Arab and Muslim countries. In doing so, the Israelis are trying to isolate the Palestinians and make the colonial settlement project something that the Middle East can live with.

However, the Israeli plan to annex large areas in the occupied West Bank is a reminder of the expansionist and hostile nature of Zionism, which does not stop at the borders of Palestine. Indeed, its consequences extend to all neighbouring countries and beyond.

In fact, the Israelis want hegemony in the Middle East, despite them being of largely European and American backgrounds, and they want to deal with any independent influence in the region as a potential threat to the occupation. The Israeli government has always been aggressive towards other regional actors to create an imbalance in the balance of power in favour of its occupation.

This trend is particularly prominent in the ring countries around Palestine. The occupation forces have targeted all of the surrounding countries at one time or another, and have actually occupied the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula twice. Moreover, Israel has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights since 1967, and launches air strikes against Damascus and other areas in attacks that are not even regarded as retaliation.

READ: Syrias air defences intercept Israel attack above Damascus

Israel occupied Beirut in 1982 and maintained a military presence in southern Lebanon from 1985 until 2000, when the Lebanese resistance forced its troops to withdraw. In this context, it is no secret that the Israelis fuelled civil war and conflicts between various Lebanese groups.

Jordan was subjected to military raids by Israeli troops throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The latest annexation plan is perhaps a warning for the Kingdom, as the boundaries of the illegal settlements are going ever closer to the River Jordan. Israel, of course, has never stated where its borders are, and Zionist expansionism pushes them back year by year. Jordan may be affected by this in light of the Israeli obsession with its Jewish identity.

It is clear that Israels targeting of its neighbours bears a direct relationship to their strength, stability and independence. The tripartite attack on Egypt in 1956, for example, saw Israeli, British and French forces take part and occurred within the framework of a move to end British dominance in the country. When Egypts military and economic position was stronger, Israel attacked it in 1967, destroyed the Egyptian Air Force on the ground and occupied the Sinai Peninsula. Syria was also targeted during that period.

That was when Egypt and Syria were at the forefront of the Arab world, but Israels tactics didnt change when new comers arrived on the scene. When Iraq, for example, was regarded by Israel as a threat, it launched air strikes deep within Iraqi territory.

Today the occupation authorities are instigating hostility towards Iran, as well as Turkey, to prevent the former from building upon its own strength and to limit the extent to which the latter can do so. Ankaras strategic interventions in the region have made Israels military intelligence agencies put Turkey on the list of countries which they believe pose a threat to the occupation.

READ: The return of apartheid, Israeli style

The Israelis behave as if they have unlimited authority to do what they want and take what they want, and also determine what other states can and cannot do or have. Nuclear energy is a case in point. In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Tammuz nuclear reactor in Iraq, and the occupation forces launched a raid on a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. Likewise, the Israeli government continues to make threats against Irans nuclear programme, despite assurance that it is for peaceful purposes only and is monitored by international inspectors. Israel, meanwhile, has anywhere between 100 and 400 nuclear weapons, has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and will not allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit its nuclear sites.

What is Israels motive for having nuclear weapons? They have no practical use against the Palestinians, because Israelis would also be killed by them, so it has to be the other countries in the region who are the potential targets of Israels nuclear arsenal. Israels occupation and nuclear programme is thus an existential threat to the whole Middle East.

We should not, therefore, be fooled by Israels propaganda as it seeks to normalise relations with its neighbours. The Zionist state does what it wants for its own benefit, nobody elses. Every weapon in its extensive armoury has been, is and can be used against any or all of the neighbouring states as Israel seeks to grind them down with extensive regional conflicts. As former Israeli President Shimon Peres admitted more than forty years ago, in order for Israel to be a political force in the Middle East, conflicts between the Arabs must expand.

This is what the Zionist agenda looks like, but it is important to point out that the Israelis cannot control everything. Regional states and governments have to play their part in protecting their sovereignty and providing a life that their citizens deserve, while also working to remove the malignant presence of Zionism which threatens the whole region.

READ: Beinart cracks Zionisms apartheid foundation

This article first appeared in Arabic inArabi21on 18 July 2020

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

See the article here:
The whole Middle East is threatened by the Israeli occupation - Middle East Monitor

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The whole Middle East is threatened by the Israeli occupation – Middle East Monitor
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 23, 2020

By Orit-Farkash-Hacohen

A caricature of a Chinese person is coughing on Uncle Sam, infecting the United States with Covid-19.

A German celebrity chef and author, Attila Hildmann, asks in a poll on his Telegram channel with over 60,000 subscribers: Who financed the Holocaust? A. the Japanese B. The Zionists C. The Arabs 87% of nearly 6,000 votes went to the Zionists.

A cleric on Twitter deemed my country a deadly, cancerous growth which needs to be destroyed.

The world today is infected with two pandemics: Covid-19, infecting people, and online hate and antisemitism, as in the examples above, infecting all major social media platforms. Like Covid-19, online hate starts with a few infected individuals and spreads, oftentimes unnoticed, to the mainstream. Sometimes its symptoms are mild or innocuous; and in certain cases, they are deadly.

Along with other minorities, Jews have been speaking out and warning about this virus of hate for over a decade and, like LGBT, Blacks, Asians and Muslims, are bearing its brunt for years. Just measuring the scope of online hate speech has daunted researchers. According to the Anti-Defamation League, in 2017 there were an estimated 4.2 million antisemitic tweets posted on Twitter in a sea of hate. At the beginning of July, YouTube removed 25,000 pages for hate speech.

But here is the really worrying part. If the history of antisemitism has taught us one thing, it is that what starts as hateful rhetoric can quickly turn into violence, physical harassment, and worse. Many of todays hate crimes wherever they take place, against whomever started with hate speech online, especially on social media platforms. That is why our concern goes beyond the realm of peoples laptops and mobile devices or legitimate arguments about freedom of speech. It stems from a determination to prevent future violence.

For years, while acknowledging there was a problem and saying we have more to do, social media giants for the most part let the problem fester and took few proactive measures to deal with online hate. Their terms of use are verbose and subject to interpretation when it comes to implementing them. While there are signs that they have finally begun to take the issue seriously, well believe it when we see it through action taken. Speaking of action, there are two first steps where we must begin.

The first thing to do in fighting incitement and antisemitism online, as in the real world, is to define it. While calling for the murder of Jews is obviously antisemitic hate-speech, what about other important, if a little less obvious forms, such as Jews control world finance, or Israelis are Nazis or the Holocaust was exaggerated?

There is a need for a clear definition of what constitutes antisemitism on social media. In order to fight it, you need to define it. Fortunately, there is a definition. The multinational International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) formulated the Working Definition of Antisemitism in 2016 which has since been officially adopted by two dozen countries and the European Union. If so many countries adopted the Working Definition, I hope that the sovereign entities of Facebook, Twitter, Google and TikTok might do the same. Criticism of minorities or of the state of Israel is not hate speech or antisemitism; the definition explicitly states that criticism of Israel is not antisemitism.

The second step is transparency. Reporting. Germany requires social media companies to publish regular reports on complaints they receive, including on hate speech, and what actions they have taken. Last year, Germany fined Facebook two million euros for under-reporting complaints. A policy of open reporting should be embraced by social media companies, and these reports should be produced by an unbiased external auditor.

A clear understanding of what comprises antisemitism and an independent, transparent reporting policy is the way to begin. With no exceptions. The example of the cleric I mentioned at the beginning of this piece is none other than the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei. Despite Twitters clear policy, the post are online, untouched. The company adamantly refuses to remove or even to label the post, noting in its reply to a letter I sent calling them out for such, that world leaders are upheld to a different set of rules. But I ask: if calling for a country to be destroyed is not inciting violence or hate-speech, then what is? Incitement is incitement, and when coming from dominant leaders even more so. Referring to the Jewish State a cancerous growth is classic and inexcusable antisemitic rhetoric.

Mark Zuckerberg recently announced Facebooks intention to prevent attempts at voter suppression and violence in the upcoming US election; following that, Sheryl Sandberg admitted Facebook has to get better at removing hate speech. Well, it is about time all social media leaders start acting on it regarding hate speech and. The sooner the better. It is social media platforms which control todays perception and public opinion. Such immense influence must be accompanied by accountability. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to spread hate.

This is a pandemic of societys own making, and if left untreated, will get worse and cost lives.

Minister Orit-Farkash-Hacohen serves as Israels Minister of Strategic Affairs and is a member of the countrys National Security Cabinet.

Continue reading here:
The Second Pandemic - European Jewish Press

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The Second Pandemic – European Jewish Press
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 23, 2020

This has been a very telling few weeks to say the least. From protests, to riots, to DeSean Jackson, to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, black Americans have been speaking loud and clear and our internal divide has not been more evident in decades. Fringe groups who were seen as such are now becoming more mainstream, forcing powerful people to either toe the line or condemn it. Age-old Nazi era conspiracy theories are increasingly seen as new revelations and gospel truth. Ridiculous discussions about what the right color Jew is has become more commonplace. And though Jew-hatred comes from all sides, it breaks my heart to say that many black Americans are making it conventional, acceptable, and even commendable in our communities.

In one camp, we have people like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Jemele Hill calling out the Jew-hating comments of DeSean Jackson and Ice Cube. In the other camp, popular figures like Jackson and Cube double down on their anti-Jewish sentiments and receive support from some of their fellow celebrity friends. Most recently, Nick Cannon has echoed those same Anti-Jewish talking points on his former show where he had numerous purveyors of those talking points as guests. Cannon has posited that white Jews are fake, Jews control the banks, and other inflammatory comments against Jews and white people. Cannon has since apologized, but his guests, and many of his followers are convinced that he has just been bullied by the Jew-ish mafia, reinforcing the false claim that whiter looking Jews are fake. One of the most powerful record executives and producers in the world, Sean P. Diddy Combs voiced support for Cannon, offering him a job on Combss music cable network following Cannons troubling rants against the Jewish people. Others who voiced support include NBA player Dwayne Wade, TV and podcast personality Charlamagne Tha God. Wade has deleted his tweet and attempted to clarify his position, but again, Cannons supporters claim Wade is dancing for his slave master.

It is worth noting that the concept of color for the worldwide Jewish community is asinine. NOI and Black Hebrew Israelite acolytes will take sacred texts and cherry pick verses and simply insert a random, baseless interpretation to it. Thus the real Jews are black and white Jews are fake myth. There is absolutely no biblical evidence to support the claim that the Jewish people are just one color or that lighter colored Jews are fake. There is, however, ample biblical evidence for the Jewish Diaspora. The Jews of Iran are the Jews of Persia from the book of Esther. The Jews of Iraq are the Jews of Babylon from the book of Daniel. The Jews of Ethiopia are the Jews of Cush from Acts 8:26-40. In the book of Acts chapter 2 tells of the Jewish feast of Shavuot, known to Christians as Pentecost. In the beginning of the chapter, the writer lets us know that there were Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven, including Greece, Rome, Egypt, Libya and Arabia. There is no avoiding the fact that the entire bible is a strong testament to the Jewish diaspora, and that diaspora is represented in modern day Israel. The only way extremist groups like NOI and BHI can successfully convince the black community otherwise is by capitalizing on our biblical illiteracy and obsession with color.

Within the black community, there has been much discussion about who the real Jews or the first Jews are. A discussion not based in any objective historical truth, but on a skewed sense of superiority and what Martin Luther King described as being color consumed. The full context of that quote can be found in my previous article here. First, a quote falsely attributed to Adolph Hitler has been proliferating social media all the way up to the celebrity level which has stoked much debate. I will not dignify it with a word for word quote, but it basically says that all black people in America are the true Jews, that America stole them from Africa, and that non-black Jews are impostors. Beside the fact that this quote is false, it does not even line up with what we know to be true about Hitler and what he said and did. Moreover, even if Hitler were to have said those things, one would have to ask the person sharing the why they are standing on the words of a Jew-hating genocidal despot to make their case. It is all a bit bizarre to say the least.

I have seen Black Lives Matter adopt the Palestinian narrative against Israel since its inception. Many people who hear me say this interject that there is a difference between Black Lives Matter and the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), a global organization and BLMs partner. M4BL perpetuates blood libels against Israel and the Jewish people, the founders are self-proclaimed Marxists who believe in the dismantling of the entire Jewish state. Also, the exact same people who coined the phrase and hashtag #BlackLivesMatter are the co-founders of BLM the anti-Zionist organization. I know people who are a part of Black Lives Matter who are not anti-Zionists or antisemites. However, I struggle to see the difference between the two entities when I see a good amount of the Black Lives Matter protests turn into demonstrations of aggression against the Jewish community. The linked article also notes that many Jewish groups from many different religious and political backgrounds voiced support and solidarity for the black community in the wake of George Floyds murder. Despite this, leaders like BLM Los Angeles founder Melina Abdullah, a student of Farrakhan, falsely accuses Israel of genocide and apartheid.

Linda Sarsour, a notorious anti-Israel activist, joined with Muslims for Abolition, BLM and other groups to put on an event called New York City Day of Action. Beside the tragically ironic fact that there seems to be nothing in their literature about abolishing Muslim imposed slavery in Africa, their poster promoting the event notes that it is open to all, minus cops and Zionists.

New York Day of Action poster

Sarsour continues to stoke the fires of animosity while claiming to be for peace and justice. These purveyors of lies about Israel love to wax poetic about Israel and Jewish people until pressed. They have no problem libeling Israeli soldiers as murderers of peaceful Gaza protesters until a Hamas leader admitted on a Palestinian news network that the vast majority of people who were shot and killed at the border riots were Hamas operatives dressed in civilian clothing. After this came out, Sarsour and every other Palestinian human rights activists fell oddly silent. They never want to admit that the real threat to the Palestinian people are their own leaders. In the discussion about Israel and the Palestinian people, there is no mention of the fact that Hamas uses its civilians as human shields for negative PR against Israel, which is why they sent civilians, and dressed terrorists up as civilians to storm the border. Their goal was not to peacefully protest; it was to overtake the Israeli border and kill Jews. And Hamas does this not for the Palestinian people; because if they did, they wouldnt hoard foreign aid money, leave the people in poverty, and torture and kill any one of their people who speaks out against them. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sarsour has made statements such as Israel was built on the idea that Jews are better than everyone else. Her neo-Marxist defamation of Zionism as Jewish supremacy is as mendacious as it is anti-Semitic.

Educated observers and students of Zionism alike are well aware that Zionism is, simply put, the program of national self determination of the Jewish people in Israel, their one and only 3000 year homeland and Nation state. Zionism as the realization of Jewish sovereignty has resulted in Israels ingathering of some eight million Jews from around the world, from Ethiopia to England, and from Uruguay to the United States.

Zionism had accomplished this goal largely throughlegally purchasing land, and gaining land in wars they did not start. Modern Zionism emerged because Jews worldwide were constantly being persecuted, discriminated against, and even murdered in large numbers. A Safe Jewish homeland ensures that Jews have secure borders, and can properly protect themselves against ever-recurring Jew-hatred. And the land of Israel is a land to where ethnic Jews are indigenous. If Sarsour has such a skewed view of what the essence of Zionism is to millions of Jewish people worldwide, why is she trusted to be a visionary and advocate for minorities? Her ahistorical musings do not stop there. Sarsour has repeated the absurd claim that Jesus, the Jewish rabbi and Messiah to 2.3 billion Christians worldwide, was a Palestinian. The term Palestine wasnt even a word until after the Romans expelled the Jews from Judea in 135 AD and renamed it Syria-Palaestina. The closest thing we have to that word is Philistia where the Philistines lived, and Jesus was not born there. He was born in Bethlehem, which may be a Palestinian territory today, but in the time He was born, it was very much Israel. To say Jesus was a Palestinian because now the land is Palestinian, is like saying Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 to 1937 was Israeli because now, part of Jerusalem belongs to Israel. That assertion would not go over well in the Palestinian activist camp, nor the Arab world, and rightfully so. Somehow, however,

Sarsour continues to try and erase Jewish history and all Jewish connection to the land of Israel. She is intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, and a closet Jew-hater; especially if those Jews are Zionist.

Another distortion that is sadly gaining traction in the black community is that the Jews funded and controlled the transatlantic slave trade. Its a talking point that Farrakhan and his followers relentlessly repeat, and it is nothing more than pseudo-intellectual Jew-hatred. While some Jews did trade and own slaves, they were in the smallest minority, amounting to a handful of Jewish families. The vast majority of slave owners were non-Jewish Americans. But thats not even the biggest point. What Nation of Islam followers always seem to leave out is the Jewish effort to end slavery. There were Jews who fought to end slavery in America, just as there were many Jews who fought and died with us to end Jim Crow segregation and lynchings. The Jewish community was pivotal in our fight for freedom and equality, mainly because of the historical and almost supernatural link that binds us through our mutual suffering and persecution. In much of our shared struggle, the Jews were seen as non-white and therefore, were considered a lower caste. To single out the few Jews who owned slaves to perpetuate the lie that the Jews controlled the slave trade is nothing short of pure and simple Jew-hatred. The purveyors of this lie are either ignorant, or intentionally deceitful. Either way, they are lost. Miseducators benefitting from the money of the people they pretend to fight for. Again, with all this talk of slavery, one would think these outspoken personalities would call attention to the centuries old Arab slave trade of black Africans; a phenomena that took off during the 7th century following the Arab colonization of North Africa and continues this very day. Not only does Farrakhan and his followers not make mention of this, but they deny it is even happening; dismissing it as a hoax, or satanic Zionist propaganda. A simple conversation with an African would quickly prove it isnt propaganda, but an unfortunate truth. Why someone would inject blind hatred and conceal truth can be best explained below:

When you see a physician drive to ones door in his Pierce Arrow, you cannot get the impression he has come to treat the patient for a complaint. He has come to treat him for a dollar. Such physicians, as a rule know less and less medicine as the years go by, although they make much money by learning human psychology and using it for personal gain. With leeches of this type feeding upon an all but impoverished people and giving them nothing back there can be no hope for advancement.

-Carter G. Woodson, The Miseducation of the Negro

This is the fight on our hands now, and its threefold: political, cultural, and biblical. The way we fight this fight at the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel is first and foremost through education. IBSI is a media and library resource that focuses on education. We work with members of the Black and Jewish communities throughout the country unearthing truths about the blacks and Jews in America, the thriving Israel and Africa relationship, and the Jewish Diaspora.

Collage of the Jewish diaspora from the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israels Facebook page.

Join IBSIs mailing list to stay updated on our progress.

Excerpt from:
Miseducation The Political, Cultural, and Biblical Fight for Truth - The Times of Israel

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Miseducation The Political, Cultural, and Biblical Fight for Truth – The Times of Israel
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 21, 2020

What really interested the earliest rabbis was the collection and organization of the so-called oral law, the traditions that had already been gathering about the text of the Torah for centuries. This was the next layer, the next level of sediment in the mounting deposit of what would come to be modern rabbinic Judaism. It culminated in the completion of the Mishnah, around the year 200 A.D. This important text, collected and edited by the illustrious Rabbi Judah the Prince, is one of the earliest documents of what can properly be called Judaism in the modern sense. It remains one of Judaisms greatest classics and, after the Bible itself, is the foundation of the Jewish religion. The term mishnah comes from a Hebrew word meaning to repeat or to study, which points to the way in which it was originally studiedby memorization. The Mishnah is organized by topics and comprises sixty-two sections known as tractates. These tractates are divided into six principal parts, dealing with (1) agriculture, and also the portions of various crops that are to be set aside for the temple, the priests, and Israels poor; (2) sabbaths and festivals; (3) women, property, marriage, and divorce; (4) civil and criminal law, including torts and the law of witnesses; (5) conduct of the cult or sacrificial liturgy of the temple; and (6) the preservation of purity in the temple and, under certain specific circumstances, in the home. Noteworthy is the continuing emphasis on the temple. At least two of the six principal parts of the Mishnah deal with that building, which isnt surprising since much of the oral law had probably begun to take shape during the period when it was still standing. But its impressive that successive generations of Jews have continued to study the Mishnah, including the substantial portions of it that would train them to conduct the sacrifices and other rites of the temple should it ever return. And it must be assumed that, at the early time when the Mishnah was compiled, the hope that the temple would soon be rebuilt still burned bright in the hearts of many scattered Jews. The lack of a temple, they were certain, would only be temporary.

Indeed, for a brief period in the fourth century, the Roman emperor Julian (360-63)known to Christian sources as Julian the Apostate but in Jewish tradition under the more neutral nickname of Julian the Helleneraised hopes for the Jews of Palestine and the rest of the empire. Quite understandably unimpressed by the behavior of his supposedly Christian imperial family, which included murders and cruelties of astonishing variety, Julian had renounced Christianity. A highly intelligent man, he had accepted in its stead a philosophical version of the old Greek religion and had set out to reduce the power of the Christian church and its bishops. As part of his policy, he announced in 362 that he would sponsor the rebuilding of Holy Jerusalem, including its temple. By restoring the Jews to their ancient capital and by reestablishing their great shrine, Julian knew, he would score a major propaganda victory against the Christian church, which had based much of its propaganda on the destruction of Jerusalem as a sign of Gods curse upon the Jewish people and the transfer of the divine blessing to the Christians.[1] He was also motivated, it seems, by genuine sympathy with Jewish doctrine and by a deep interest in religious ritual generally. The Christian reaction to Julians plans was, predictably, furious and apparently violent. Thus, when Christian legends report miraculous fireballs that destroyed everything the Jews had built on the temple mount, we can probably infer from this that pious arsonists set fire to the construction site. And when Julian was stabbed to death by a devout Christian Arab soldier among his troops, the dream of a restored Jewish temple died with him.

There still existed a large Jewish colony in Mesopotamia, in the area to which the Jews had been carried off during the so-called Babylonian captivity. As already mentioned, the captives had prospered there, and most of them had chosen to remain in comfortable exile even when the road to return was entirely open. They enjoyed a flourishing intellectual life and maintained relatively close contact with their fellow-believers in and around Palestine. Soon, the Mishnah reached them there. But the rabbis didnt, at first, occupy the first rank among Babylonian Jewry. Surprisingly enough, these exiles enjoyed a kind of quasi-political autonomy later than the Jews of Palestine did. For a time, their leader, who was known as the exilarch, functioned as a kind of princehe claimed to be descended from the very King Zedekiah who had been carried away into captivity just after Lehis departure from Jerusalem in the sixth century B.C.and served as a high official in the Parthian state that ruled the area. However, when the fervidly Zoroastrian Sasanian Dynasty came to power early in the third century, the privileged role and the political powers of the exilarch were curtailed. But as the political elite of Babylonian Jewry lost power and prestige, the influence of the rabbis expanded to fill the vacuum. Thus, eventually, just as in Palestine, the scholars took over. Jesus words, spoken more than two centuries before, were now truer than ever: The scribes and the Pharisees, he had said, sit in Moses seat.[2]

Given the new Jewish focus on the writing of commentaries, its hardly surprising that scholars immediately began to comment upon the Mishnah. Both the rabbis of Palestine and the rabbinic academies of Mesopotamia thus produced editions of what is known as the Talmud. (The name comes from a Hebrew word meaning study, or learning.) This represents the third layer of Judaism as we know it. The Talmud grew out of lectures and discussions on the Mishnah, which was the core of the curriculum. The Jerusalem Talmud, or Talmud of the West, was complete by the end of the fourth century A.D. Most of the work on it was actually done in the city of Tiberias, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. It represents the thought and the decisions of the Palestinian rabbis and scholars during the two centuries that had passed since the compiling of the Mishnah. In fact, although presented in the form of a commentary, it actually goes beyond the Mishnah and includes material on issues the Mishnah had not touched at all. Work on the Babylonian Talmud took somewhat longer and was finished a century later. Although the Babylonian is the more detailed of the two Talmuds, both are in substantial agreement. Both are mostly in Hebrew, with passages in western Aramaic and a sprinkling of Greek loan words in the Jerusalem Talmud, and passages in eastern Aramaic and a few Persian loan words in the Babylonian Talmud. Together, they form an admirable foundation for a unified body of religious law and practice.

[1] For some interestingly similar modern views on the matter, see Thomas L. Friedman, From Beirut to Jerusalem (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1989), 430-31.

[2] Matthew 23:2.

Posted from Park City, Utah

Link:

Revision 1.13 The Mishnah and the Talmuds | Dan Peterson - Patheos

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on Revision 1.13 The Mishnah and the Talmuds | Dan Peterson – Patheos
Tags: