Judaism Does Not Equal Israel
By Marc Ellis
The New Press 232 pp. $24.95
Einstein on Israel and Zionism: His Provocative Ideas About the Middle East.
By Fred Jerome.
St. Martin’s Press. 334 pp. $25.95
‘The Arabs have attacked us unexpectedly, wanted to destroy our settlement work, have murdered and plundered,” Chaim Weizmann wrote in 1929. Although until now, the Jews “have given everything” to Arab leaders who “want only one thing, to chase us into the Mediterranean,” he added, “we are now pressed from all sides to conclude a pact with them.” Weizmann vowed to accept nothing less than a society in Palestine, “as Jewish as England is English and America is American.”
As the two books under review remind us, these views were controversial then, among Jews as well as non-Jews, and they remain controversial now. They demonstrate, as well, how often supporters and critics of Israel talk past one another, shedding more heat than light.
A collection of letters, articles and interviews, some published and some unpublished, with commentary by journalist Fred Jerome, “Einstein on Israel and Zionism” seeks to explode as a myth the claim that the great scientist was a champion of the establishment of the State of Israel.
Einstein’s writings underscore that he was not a systematic political thinker. His idealism, moreover, often crossed the border into naiveté. His views on a Jewish state, however, were rather consistent. Alarmed by the rising tide of antisemitism in Eastern Europe at the end of World War I, Einstein declared himself a human being, a Jew, an opponent of nationalism and a Zionist.
Militantly secular, he maintained that the bond uniting his people was “the democratic ideal of social justice, coupled with the ideal of mutual tolerance among all men.” Einstein’s Zionism used the “fact” of Jewish nationality to promote self-knowledge, self-esteem and solidarity. But it was “immune from the folly of power” and “the obsession with race” that dominated Europe in the first half of the 20th century.
Einstein supported a “homeland” for Jews in Palestine, but he opposed a Jewish state “with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power.” Since two-thirds of the population of Palestine consisted of Arabs, he preferred bi-national status with “continuously functioning, mixed, administrative, economic, and social organizations.” Only cooperation with Arabs, led by “educated, spiritually alert” Jewish workers, he wrote, “can create a dignified and safe life…. What saddens me is less the fact that the Jews are not smart enough to understand this, but rather, that they are not just smart enough to want it.”
So great was Einstein’s prestige that he was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952, after the death of Weizmann. If he accepted, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion confessed, “we are in for trouble.” Nonetheless, the offer suggests that among many Israelis, his views were not entirely beyond the pale.
Einstein said no — and continued to give voice to fears “for the soul of Israel.” He acknowledged that “there is no turning back anymore.” A few months before his death, however, he remembered his “great hopes that Israel might be better than other nations,” only to conclude that “it is no better.”
“Judaism Does Not Equal Israel” is a sharper — and shriller — version of Einstein’s critique of the Jewish state. A “post-Holocaust” theology, according to Marc Ellis, professor of Jewish studies and director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Baylor University, has conflated Jewish identity with allegiance to Israel, justified the “ethnic cleansing of more than seven hundred thousand Palestinians,” and muzzled “even mainstream, moderate critics” as “self-hating Jews.”
Einstein, Ellis points out, was by no means the only Jewish intellectual troubled by policies to ensure the security of Jews “at the expense of another people.” Proposing a spiritual renewal rooted in community, Martin Buber wanted Jews to live in the Holy Land without a Jewish state to define that presence. And, writing in 1948, Hannah Arendt predicted that dispossession and the quashing of dissent would accompany the creation of a Jewish state.
Although Ellis sometimes asks questions worth asking, his all-out assault on Israel, alas, is not likely to result in the dialogue he seeks. Palestinians, Ellis maintains, “have a right to see Israel and Jews [italics added] as colonialists and racists. The occupation has never been benign. Jews are not innocent.” Although he deems comparisons between the behavior of Nazis and Israelis “difficult to fathom,” he explains that the “Nazi reference is a plea to end a madness that was visited upon Jews for millennia, which they now visit upon another people [that they] have tortured, expelled, and murdered.”
Ellis insists that the equation of Israeli and Palestinians “sins” and “rights” distorts “the historical reality.” In 1948, he claims, the Israelis were the aggressors, but it is they who now hold a monopoly on power. To restore their precious ethical traditions, “Israelis and their Jewish enablers in America” must confess their sins against the Palestinian people. He hopes, as well, for an admission that the two-state solution “is a fraud.” Ellis advocates one state (with Arabs and Jews living together), and the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages in pre-1967 Israel.
Acknowledging that Israel is not likely “to reverse its expansionist course,” Ellis ends with mourning — and a warning. No state, he writes, apocalyptically, can exercise power over others indefinitely. As the day of reckoning nears, the children of Israel “will encounter such hollowness at the core of Jewish identity that their distance from things Jewish will increase until, incrementally, the core disappears” and Jewish affiliation dwindles “to the point of no return.”
Mourning can be a sign of hope, in which God returns or doesn’t, Ellis emphasizes, rather abstractly. And “too late can be right on time — when the time is right.” For now, though, he’s a self-proclaimed prophet in exile. His book is often over the top, but Ellis’s concerns about the ethical obligations of the State of Israel are, at times, worth listening to, even by those with a powerful urge to doubt, dismiss or destroy him.
Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
"Militantly secular, he maintained that the bond uniting his people was “the democratic ideal of social justice, coupled with the ideal of mutual tolerance among all men.” Einstein’s Zionism used the “fact” of Jewish nationality to promote self-knowledge, self-esteem and solidarity. But it was “immune from the folly of power” and “the obsession with race” that dominated Europe in the first half of the 20th century."
This isn't contradictory, Glenn.
Being a Zionist in 1929 wasn't the same as being a "nationalist." To people who have no nation and are threatened with extinction wanting to build or rebuild a homeland in their ancestral lands is not the same as someone who has a nation and attacks other countries which is what extreme nationalism do.
"Judaism Does Not Equal Israel” is a sharper — and shriller — version of Einstein’s critique of the Jewish state. A “post-Holocaust” theology, according to Marc Ellis, professor of Jewish studies and director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Baylor University, has conflated Jewish identity with allegiance to Israel, justified the “ethnic cleansing of more than seven hundred thousand Palestinians,” and muzzled “even mainstream, moderate critics” as “self-hating Jews.”"
What about the more than seven hundred thousand Jews cleansed from Arab lands?
What kind of Jewish studies program does Marc Ellis direct? The one supported by the PLO or Hamas?
"For now, though, he’s a self-proclaimed prophet in exile. His book is often over the top, but Ellis’s concerns about the ethical obligations of the State of Israel are, at times, worth listening to,"
Why so? Just because he wants to make Jews a stateless people again unablt to defend themselves and living of the kindness of strangers in the name of some pseudo marality?
"even by those with a powerful urge to doubt, dismiss or destroy him."
Excuse me it is Ellis who wants to destroy Jewish sovereignty and kill a lot of Jews in the process.
Like may self proclaimed "Jewish" moralists he is willing to risk the lives of other Jewish so that he could feel "moral."
The man is a disgrace.
It seems that this article has a proof-reading mistake. The article states: "In 1948, he claims, the Israelis were the aggressors, BUT it is they who now hold a monopoly on power". The word "but" would suggest that the intention was that in 1948 "...the Israelis were NOT the aggressors, but it is they who now hold a monopoly on power". It's not true that Israel has the monopoly of power. The Palestinians still have the ability to initiate and to shape events even as the weaker side in the confrontation - but I believe that my correction of the article seems to have been the claim of Ellis.
"Ellis advocates one state (with Arabs and Jews living together), and the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages in pre-1967 Israel". I wonder if Ellis has a view of what life would be like in the Land of Israel in a situation of one state. Does he imagine peaceful co-existence, or does he imagine the continuity of conflict and animosity between the two communities sharing one state? Well, admittedly, the article doesn't speak of a "one-state SOLUTION" - just "one-state" - so, perhaps, it is clear to Ellis that he is proposing a one-state framework for the continuing animosity between Jews and Arabs. Well, no thanks. Let's first end the conflict. Let's define the factors that have led to animosity and violence - and then resolve them. Once the conflict is solved (i.e. once the legitimacy of the Hebrew yishuv is accepted), then we can speak about a framework of one state or two states or even three states. Once the conflict is solved, then we can agree on the rights of refugees and their descendants (both Jews and Arabs).
When proposing political solutions, it is always self-evident that the solution takes into account the vital interests of the conflicting parties. What would be the interest of the Jewish public in Israel to give up its political sovereignty? What would motivate this public to give up its statehood and to share a new political framework with a hostile and a suspicious population? It turns out apparently that it is possible to propose a plan that ignores entirely the achievements and the interests of only this one particular side in only this one particular conflict. How unrealistic.
Albert Einstein was indeed a political naif. Right through to 1950, he belonged to -- and was in fact honorary president of -- Ambijan, the pro-Soviet Jewish organization that raised funds for the supposed Jewish Autonomous Region in Birobidzhan, in the Soviet far east. This, at a time when Stalin had virtually destroyed the Jewish intelligentsia in the USSR. Being a genius is no safeguard against folly.
conversion to mosheism by many voelken in parts of euro-asia clearly shows that the sense of "jewishnes" among these converts arose only after converting. most of these converts had not spoken or ever learnt hebrew langauge. it is only a cult that connects some hundred different ethnoses to their "jewishness" these people have given up on their nationality just like people who followed koresh or jones cult. They were cultists before they were irish, italian, german, et al.
"jewishness" was rewarded with a state by christians because christians needed cannon fodder made up of hated, poor 'jews' in order to further disunite arabs.
that had been accopmlished. And now it is either shemitischen-frei israel or binational state. Which is it going to be? Meanwhile, israel is a total dependency of christian lands. not a very good feeling for 'jews'. tnx
"A 'post-Holocaust' theology, according to Marc Ellis, professor of Jewish studies and director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Baylor University, has conflated Jewish identity with allegiance to Israel". Let's assume that this statement is true. What is wrong with Jewish allegiance to Israel? Having a sense of loyalty to one's own is the most normal thing in the world. I'm always baffled as to why Jewish normalcy is a topic for discussion.
Sadly, the statement is not even true. For most Diaspora Jews, Israel is not even on the agenda. Israel has so much to offer the Diaspora, and the first and most important item obviously is her living Hebrew language and the culture produced in it. The reason that Diaspora Jews are not interested in Israel or in the Hebrew language or in sending their children to study in the Hebrew language universities is that the Diaspora identity is so weak. Most Jews have very little background in Jewishness. Their chief identity is their non-Jewish identity (i.e. they are Americans). When you run into an American Jewish tourist anywhere in the world, he'll present himself as an American, obviously, not a Jew.
What typifies the world view of university scholars is that they think that the whole world is composed of university scholars. Perhaps Prof Ellis has the impression that all other Jews are scholars of Jewish studies, and that they have a strong affinity to Israel. I wish it were so. Reality is quite different. I would imagine that a substantially higher percentage of American Jews have been to Rome and Paris and London - than to Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv. I would imagine that most don't even know the Hebrew alphabet. Moreover, those American Jews who have mastered a second language probably have troubled themselves to study French or Spanish - not Hebrew (or Yiddish). In short, being Jewish is not center-stage for an obvious majority of Diaspora Jews. Jewish identity is in crisis for generations, and it's absolute nonsense to claim that such a watered-down Jewish experience expresses itself "with allegiance to Israel".
There are so many articles in the Forward week after week, expressing a discomfort with the rise of Israel as the center of the Jewish world or with the necessity of Israel to resort to force in defending her interests. I wish there would be a few articles discussing the crisis of assimilation in America. I feel it's almost an act of journalistic cowardice to be focused on Israel and Middle East crisis. With all her problems, Israel is a tremendous Jewish success story. Jews live in their own society, speaking their own language, creating their own culture, marrying other Jews and giving their children - all of them - a real Hebrew and Jewish education. Let's now discuss some of the failures in the Diaspora. Hopefully, the Forward is not afraid of expressing the blunt truth.
How did Marc Ellis ever become the head of a "Jewish Studies program?"
A Jewish author like Amos Oz grasps that Jewish identity spans more than the 60 years since the founding of the Jewish state. His Zionism does not hold the exile in contempt. However, perhaps in order to establish itself as a state among states in 1948, Israel has seen it necessary to define itself in terms of the "negation of exile." This is what these spiritual, ethical Jews find off-putting in the Jewish state, and they find it to be so for reasons that probably have more to do with what runs in their blood than what they think. Almost all religious groups, without exception, opposed Zionism at its inception because only God can restore the Jewish people to sovereignty in Israel, until which time we can only remain in exile. The attempt to place Israel at the center of Jewish self-definition, rather than God, is what critics of Zionism such as Einstein find off-putting.
Einstein participated in the founding of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (1925); therefore, it is more than obvious that he identified with Zionism. The Hebrew University marked the crowning success of the most amazing achievement of Zionism - the revival of Hebrew. Later, after the founding of the State of Israel, he was offered the presidency. He turned it down - not because of of any rejection of Zionism - rather, because he did not wish to be responsible for the actions of statehood (which could include the use of force).
The negation of the exile was not a position taken by the early State of Israel (1948) in order to determine its place among the nations, as Brad has speculated. Zionism is an ideology. As all ideologies, it has its clear-cut answers and it had these answers long before independence: The Jews are a nation, one of the peoples of the world, and they must return to their national homeland. Such a position negates the legitimacy of the Diaspora, obviously. In the past, the Jews defined their exile in religious terms (punishment for our sins), and Zionism defined it in political, ideological terms (being in control of our own destiny as all other peoples).
Today, it would be rare for an Israeli intellectual to express such positions. A.B. Yehoshua expressed his opinion about Diaspora Jewish life at the American Jewish Committee a few years ago, stirring up a lot of anger against him in the American Jewish community. Generally, however, you don't hear such blunt talk, because in essence ideology is no longer a motivating factor in Jewish circles. The Jewish revolutionary has disappeared, so there is no audience that can be swept off its feet with a "vision" of a better tomorrow. What is left of the ideological world of the Forward, for example? Just its name!
I would agree with Brad that the Zionism of Amos Oz "does not hold the exile in contempt" - but I would add that the exile is not really part of his Jewish world either. In Israel, the Jews are their own society with their own language and their own narrative. A parallel or a competing Jewish world - the world of a Sholom Aleikhem story with its Yiddish language, society and Jewish ideologies - has disappeared.
"The attempt to place Israel at the center of Jewish self-definition, rather than God, is what critics of Zionism such as Einstein find off-putting". Brad - I don't think that Einstein himself would agree with you. I don't think that Jews in general have placed God at the center of Jewish self-definition. Moreover, I don't think that Jews are at all busy with God. The Jewish public is generally very irreligious, and I can't remember any conversation with an American Jew about God - not even with a rabbi. Do you have such conversations?
Israel has become the center of the Jewish experience in the modern world. This is a fact of life. Even in the days of the Yishuv or of early statehood, it was clear that the Land of Israel had become the focus of the Jewish world - even though its population was still quite modest. The Hebrew language and the existence of a distinctive Jewish society, the attainment of political power with its Jewish symbols (the flag, the national anthem) - all this made a very deep impression on Jews. Certainly today, when Israel is also the largest Jewish community (soon to be the majority of world Jewry), it's obvious that Israel has taken center-stage of the Jewish experience. A mere ten-day "Birthright" excursion to Israel is regarded as an important tool in the fight for Jewish identity in the Diaspora. I don't see thousands of Israeli youth being sent to experience a Jewish community in exile in order to strengthen their sense of Jewish identity!
The anti-Zionist position of some intellectuals is actually a tool in expressing a type of Jewish identity. They're certainly not busy with God or with the Jewish religion. The rejection of Israel as the center of the Jewish world is for them a way of defining their alternative Jewishness - which ironically means that Israel is the center of their Jewish world.
The anti-Zionist position of some intellectuals is actually a tool in expressing a type of Jewish identity. They're certainly not busy with God or with the Jewish religion....I would have to strongly agree with this statement. Antizionist Jews, be they secular or Neturei karta, are keenly aware that they are seen as a freak phenomenon and that they are uncomfortable with this. Seeing that their desire for powerlessness is not making headway with mainstream Jewry, they make common cause with antisemites in order to decrease the number of Jews. This would explain the warm relations between Neturei karta and Ahmadinejad. If Iran nukes Israel and eliminates half of the Jewish people, the proportion of Jews that are Neturei karta automatically doubles without any effort on Neturei's part. Mark Ellis is not a self hating Jew. He does not hate himself, but probably hates the average Jew
Thanks for your reply, Ben Levi. I think that the fact that most American Jews do not talk about God does not negate the fact that Zionism, with its narrative about our taking control of our own destiny, is but one theme in the larger story of the Jews. I imagine that is what Marc Ellis means when he says that "Judaism Does Not Equal Israel." Amos Oz is fascinating because he throws the founding of Israel into relief against the history of the Jews. That is what I mean by our "larger story." For example, Oz says that, during the time of rising fascism, his father witnessed graffiti that said "Jews to Palestine"; later, when his father returned to Europe after the Holocaust, he witnessed graffiti that said "Jews out of Palestine." It is in this context that the new anti-Semitism can be understood, but without this context - without history - there can be no defense of the Zionist enterprise.
Anyway, Zionism used to be based on the same kind of socialism that you rightly said is disappearing in our own time. It has largely disappeared from Israel as well, and has been replaced by settlers' militant messianism and the likes of Avigdor Lieberman. I do not think this is cause for celebration. You say that Einstein declined the presidency because he stood opposed to the use of force to maintain a Jewish state; however, this is precisely what has been required since the founding. Therefore, when you say that "it is more than obvious that [Einstein] identified with Zionism," it must be recognized that there is a difference between identifying with a Jewish homeland and identifying with a Jewish state.
Brad - When Prof Ellis says that "Judaism Does Not Equal Israel", he is actually making a nonsense statement. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. Israel is the state founded by the Jewish people. So both are creations of the Jews, but no one has even thought for a moment that the two creations are one and the same creation. What he really means to say is that he feels hostility towards Israel, and that Israel has no part in his Jewish world.
Why does the Zionist project need to be defended? A state comes into existence, and that's that. It exists, and it has the right to defend its existence. Does anyone feel the need to defend the project that led to the founding of New Zealand? Anyway, if you are arguing that anti-Semitism is the justification for the founding of a Jewish state in modern times - well, it's just simply not so. Mourning the loss of the Temple and the exile from the Land of Israel are the very heart of the Jewish narrative. "Next year in Jerusalem" is not a battle cry to escape from anti-Semites. It is the essence of Jewish identity throughout the Middle Ages. The movement that translated this aspiration into a practical political movement was called "Zionism". Very few Diaspora Jews seem to understand what "Zion" is. It is the name of the Temple Mount. The national movement wasn't named "the movement to rescue persecuted Jews". It was named "Zionism", focusing on the deepest of Jewish memories from antiquity - meaning, the renaissance of Jewish national life. Indeed, one says the "Third Temple" in poetic modern Hebrew, and the intention is "the State of Israel". One should read the 1948 Declaration of Independence to understand the identity of modern Israel. It mentions briefly the Holocaust, of course - but the focus of the document is Jewish memory from antiquity and the age-old dream of redemption.
You seem to think that the settler messianism and Lieberman are now mainstream Israel. No, that's not true. The settlers have political influence, obviously, and Lieberman's success at the polls in the last election has given him leverage in the present Knesset. And, yet, mainstream Israel is neither the settlers nor Lieberman. Mainstream Israel is still the secular center (Labor-Likud) of veteran Israel that is totally committed to democracy. This center would like to reach an end of conflict based on two states, Arab and Jewish, between the sea and the Jordan River - but realizes that this goal will not be achieved soon.
Are you criticizing the existence of a Jewish state because force is needed to maintain its existence? Well, all peoples throughout history have found themselves in a war situation. It's sad, but it's not that sad. It's a rather low-keyed confrontation. In any case, your differentiating "between identifying with a Jewish homeland and identifying with a Jewish state" is puzzling. There will be no homeland for our Hebrew yishuv without a Jewish government and a Jewish army. Does anyone need an explanation for this obvious fact of life?
Einstein identified with the State of Israel. Before the founding of the state, there was a debate amongst Jews if achieving independence is the course of action that we should pursue. Some thought that a bi-national state was a better idea (Magnes, for example, thought so). However, once the state was founded, it was widely accepted by Jews everywhere - even by those who had previously proposed other solutions. Serious and thinking people accept reality as the new basis for their positions; indeed, as the article states: "He [Einstein] acknowledged that 'there is no turning back anymore'." Moreover, Einstein's criticism of Israel (disappointed "great hopes that Israel might be better than other nations") is not an indication of non-acceptance of Jewish sovereignty. Quite the contrary - no one criticizes something that shouldn't exist; rather, wanting Israel to be better than others can only mean that one identifies with her and wishes her the best.
Prof Ellis wishes to cancel Jewish independence and to replace it with another state. In other words, Israel shouldn't exist. This is not criticism, obviously. Whatever Israel might do could not win the approval of a person who thinks that she shouldn't be at all. This was not the point of view of Einstein. He was critical of Israel (he had wished she be the best nation), meaning that he accepted her. Ellis seems to think that opposition to the founding of Jewish statehood means continued opposition afterwards as well, so he has "drafted" Einstein to his ideology. Only a very small number of Jews continued to oppose Jewish independence after the birth of Israel.
Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat after the Dreyfus Affair; the impetus for this father of Zionism was anti-Semitism. You say that the Jewish state has the right to defend itself and then ask why the Zionist project has to be defended; in the one case, you are referring to military force, in the other, to intellectual endeavor. I think the State of Israel needs both (witness "hasbara").
Be that as it may. You state that the mainstream Israeli center - Labor/Likud - would like to reach a settlement that would end in two states, one Arab, and one Jewish. I think such frankness is needed, because the conflict is usually masked as one between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Note the difference between the two ways of framing the conflict. One refers to all Israel, the other, to the State of Israel. The State's statehood is illusory if all Israel is implicated in the conflict, because then there are not Israeli Jews, American Jews, Argentine Jews, etc., but merely Jews dispersed throughout the world - including in Israel. There can be no return to pre-exilic times, even if we return to the scene of the crime. Only in Messianic times can we realize the full force of what has been lost by the measure of its restoration.
Thanks for your reply.
Brad - In all of Herzl's writings, he hardly deals with the Dreyfus affair. Herzl's point of view was that there would be no place for the Jews in a liberal world in which every people would achieve its own self-determination on its own national soil. That was also the view of Spinoza more than two centuries before. Zionism was a movement of idealists, not refugees. Herzl wanted an ideal society for Jews, as he described in his novel "Altneuland". Ahad Ha-'Am wanted a renaissance of Jewish creativity in the Land of Israel. The founders of the kibbutz movement wanted a socialist utopia. The revival of the Hebrew language was idealism which re-created Jewish culture. A movement of refugees from anti-Semitism would have been a down-to-earth practical movement in Yiddish, and it would never have chosen the impractical Land of Israel as its destination.
President Obama's speech in Cairo also presented your world view that Israel was born out of a need for a haven. He presented an untrue picture of the Jewish people, totally ignoring the real drama of Israel. The point of reference of Jewish history is the destruction of the Temple, not modern anti-Semitism. Read the Declaration of Independence: "We call upon the Jewish people in all the lands of dispersion to rally around the Jews of the Land of Israel in 'aliyah and in building the Land, to realize the aspiration of all generations - the redemption of Israel". Redemption, as you probably know, is a messianic concept. A declaration of independence of a political movement busy with anti-Semitism would have stated: "We call upon the Jews to immigrate quickly to the Jewish state before it's too late..."
President Obama actually strengthened Arab resolve to reject Israel. The Arabs have always argued that they have had to suffer because of European anti-Semitism. You, Brad, attach importance to hasbara, to "defending the Zionist project". So here's our story: We are the returning sons and daughters of this Land.
It's extremely interesting to speak with American Jews and to find out that they are such idealistic people in a whole range of topics. There is only one topic of idealism that has gone right by them: Their own story. So for them, Judaism is supposedly about "tikkun olam" (we have a message for others), but there is no ideal message for ourselves. We're merely refugees. Well, it's not so. The return to Jerusalem and the re-establishment of a Jewish society, creating a continuity of Jewish culture in the language of the Bible - this is our message for ourselves. Why are thousands of Jewish youth being sent on educational programs to Israel every year? Are they investigating their potential refuge from the anti-Semites, or are they being presented with another way of expressing their Jewish identity?
How sad it is that American Jews don't study Hebrew. Many simply can't understand the drama of the renaissance of Jewish life in this country. An outsider, like President Obama, views Jewish history in the eyes of an outsider. He can see persecutions, but he can't see the renewal of a foreign culture. American Jews should be different. They are supposed to be insiders. Our Hebrew society is not supposed to be foreign to them. It should be clear to them the uniqueness of the revival of Hebrew culture on this ancient soil.
Proof, even einstein wasnt an einstein
In a 1947 letter to Indian Prime Minister Nehru, seeking support for the Jewish state, Einstein wrote that "long before the emergence of Hitler I made the cause of Zionism mine because through it I saw a means of correcting a flagrant wrong." and "the advent of Hitler underscored with a savage logic all the disastrous implications contained in the abnormal situation in which Jews found themselves. Millions of Jews perished. . . because there was no spot on the globe where they could find sanctuary. . . The Jewish survivors demand the right to dwell amid brothers, on the ancient soil of their fathers." Author William Frankel, wrote in his "Tea With Einstein": "Einstein was passionate in his denunciation of the Irgun and the Stern Gang" Frankel wrote, "even though he conceded that its militant activities could possibly advance the creation of the Jewish state which was, in his opinion, both desirable and inevitable." It is important to remember that when President Harry Truman recognized Israel in May 1948, Einstein declared it "the fulfillment of our dreams." After Israel was established he wrote to a cousin in Uruguay:"No one respects those who do not fight for their rights”. Einstein allowed the auctioning of this letter to raise funds for the Israel’s Defense Forces. He declined the presidency in 1952 because as he wrote:"a position like Israel's presidency required etiquette and interpersonal finesse—traits that he, claimed to lack." Several days before his death, in April 1955, he invited Israel's ambassador Eban to his home and asked if the Israelis would like him to record a national radio address of Israel's behalf. "I must challenge the conscience of the world, he told Eban, "and boldly criticize the world powers for their attitude to Israel". The speech was planned to coincide with the Israeli Independence day at the end of the month. Unfortunately he died before being able to deliver the speech. He left all of his papers to the Hebrew University, of which he was a founder. If Jerome and Ellis like it or not, Einstein was a Zionist. Ellis apparently "forgot" that in 1948 the Jewish community in Palestine was attacked, first by local Arabs and then by the regular armies of five Arab states. To claim, like he does, that the Palestinian Jews were the aggressors in 1948, betrays a fanatical anti-Israeli bias, unbecoming an academic. And he should keep in mind that had the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan and had not started their war of aggression, there would have been no Palestinian refugees, and the Palestinian Arab state would have been 61 y old today.
The whole point of Zionism is the right of Jews to determine their future, and not be under the sword of Damoclean rulers. Hence, it must be a Jewish state. Einstein was a brilliant scientist, however he was naive regarding the fact that Jews have suffered under numerous non-Jewish rulers for 6,000 years, regardless of his flight from Nazi Germany.
Arabs want you dead, just read their media, their charters, and what their clerics, imams, and muftis claim they want.
http://www.tabletmag.com/arts-and-culture/books/11853/a-relative-zionist/
"Relatively Speaking, a Zionist
An anthology tries—and fails—to paint Einstein as hostile to Israel" By Adam Kirsch | 7:00
G-D is the G-D of All Mankind. it is written....Jeremiah 32 " I am the LORD, the G-D of all mankind. Is anything too hard for Me"?
We are his creation, who will wipe the tears that fall so deep within our G-D for what mankind do to each other and the gods they creat, for their way of life, so that sin can fit in. And the One True G-D stays out. What nation has not sinned? One sin is not greater than an other. Who do we think we are? The lie and the deceit is told to us every day in that self talk we do.....I am not so bad, I have a few falts. There just little sins. G-D understands, why I did it.....
The only good that mankind can do is through G-D in them. Only G-D is good, and all truthful, there is no truth found in mankind. Wisdom belongs to G-D. So why do we think for one minute that we know who to save the world.
The whole point of Zionism or any Palestinian Arab state or any other nation is to have their will done. Give that free will offering over to G-D give up your will to do the will of Ehlohay Kawl Bahsar, the G-D of All Mankind and peace will come to all.
Let me remind you that president Obama is the head of a nation Under G-D, and in G-D We Trust. This is our banner, Adoni Neesee, The LORD Is My Banner.
Our history of our nation that is under G-D in whom we Trust. in this inperfect world, is my Standard. G-D'S perfection is my goal. Once it was all the goal of the people, but nevertheless sin of the world creepted in and darkness now covers the banner, not all see it. Freedom for all mankind. Love one an other as you do yourself, in thought, word and deed. the law of Adoni Tseedkaynu The LORD Our Righteousness.
President Obama, well they say a lot about him, G-D is his judge and yours and mine. I pray that G-D will rest upon him and heal our country and bring the darkness that covers us into the light that comes form being One Nation Under G-D, in whom we trust. G-D'S eye goes to and fro looking for his holy children, may he see many in the Nation that wants to be under G-D. Did you know the only thing that can come into the eye is light. We were once a great light to the world, may President Obama, lead us again. Nothing happens under the sun without G-D granting it, remember Job. Obama, was G-D'S choice, for what ever reason. It is written.... Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting G-D the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and His understanding no one can fathom.
Mankind, should care more what they have done, to G-D and his creation do to sin, than what has happened to them. They dwell in what their hurt and do not heal. It is written .....in Genesis that G-D was sorry he ever created mankind.