Ship of Fools: The Story of the Jews

Thread: The Story of the Jews Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026047

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

This is a new Simon Schama series, I thought we might like to discuss our thoughts on it.

[ 01. September 2013, 20:30: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
This is a new Simon Schama series, I thought we might like to discuss our thoughts on it.

Thought it was going to be good until the whole programme seemed to focus on Sigmund Freud and his own personal feelings/demons and the usual TV archaologist/theologians saying that Moses never existed.

*sigh*
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

It WAS good. Very good. [Cool]

I'm evangelical, but I don't get bent out of shape every time a BBC doc doesn't share my perspective on all things biblical.

Freud hardly dominated the episode and beginning with his reflections on what it meant to be a Jew was actually a stroke of genius. Schama took you right in and developed the theme from there.

This was a rich, very informative episode packed with so much I could hardly digest it.

But, in a nutshell: Jews are people of the Word, and have survived centuries of exile, trauma, persecution and hardship because of this.

Great stuff. [Smile]

I've always liked Schama, he's a very engaging presenter and historian.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

I enjoyed it, I have to say, but will need to watch again to take it all in.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
the usual TV archaologist/theologians saying that Moses never existed.

I liked the program but hadn't realised that there was a whole cadre of "TV archaologist/theologians" waiting for a chance to say Moses never existed. I've obviously been watching the wrong channel (or maybe the right ones).

One point amused me: that David killing Goliath may have been a metaphor before we made it into one.

The idea of the plurality of Jewish belief with a community in Egypt being ordered into line by the 'mother temple' was also new to me.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.

Be that as it may, I liked his pesach/passover scene and his intelligent questioning about Jewish paranoia.

I like the fact that he took for granted that the Exodus never happened in anything like the Torah's account.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I was disappointed that more actual evidence was not presented - I was left with little sense of what life was really like for the folk of biblical times. I am hoping for more texture and detail n the next episode.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I haven't watched yet, but read the article he wrote in the Radio Times last week - not, unfortunately, available on line. So I'm having to type out bits from the end where he wrote about the issue I was worried about. I'm leaving out a lot I would have liked to include out of respect for copyright.

quote:
I am ... not the mystical kind (of historian-Zionist) who takes the Bible as an entitlement to land, territory, settlements. Historian-Zionists understand that one kind of tragedy can, alas, beget others, and in the case of the Palestinians, it's in keeping with the deepest ethical requirements of Judaism to understand and empathise with their nakba (catastrophe) and do something about it. ...*
Many of the founders of Israel understood the ethical obligation to understand the rights and grievances of the Palestinians...

*Here he said that Muslims should understand the nakba experienced by Jews evicted from Muslim countries.

He finished by quoting Hillel "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour..."

I don't think he is of one mind with the Israeli government, nor with the settlers.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.

Be that as it may, I liked his pesach/passover scene and his intelligent questioning about Jewish paranoia.

I like the fact that he took for granted that the Exodus never happened in anything like the Torah's account.

How is he the Tories' theologian? He supports the Labour party. He's so left wing he thinks we need to understand Israel's actions and thinking rather than just condemn it.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I tried to read Schama's book about the French Revolution once, but I didn't make it to the end; it's rather voluminous.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I found his book on the French Revolution slow going. His book about Holland The Embarrassment of Riches was fabulous, maybe because of all the pictures. [Biased]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.

Be that as it may, I liked his pesach/passover scene and his intelligent questioning about Jewish paranoia.

I like the fact that he took for granted that the Exodus never happened in anything like the Torah's account.
How is he the Tories' theologian? He supports the Labour party. He's so left wing he thinks we need to understand Israel's actions and thinking rather than just condemn it.

I did not claim 'theologian' for him. That would be an insult to all theologians.

I said 'historian'.

Michael Gove asked him to write a history curriculum. No consulting history teachers. no consulting pupils.

He readily agreed and produced a severely right wing document.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

What was wrong with it? I haven't read it.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I like the fact that he took for granted that the Exodus never happened in anything like the Torah's account.

I'm never impressed with a priori assumptions based on lack of evidence. It just seems lazy to me.

a priori = Made before or without examination.

[ 02. September 2013, 20:28: Message edited by: Hawk ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian

I've always thought he was a bit wet. Didn't know he was a Labour Party man.

quote:
I did not claim 'theologian' for him. That would be an insult to all theologians.

I said 'historian'.

I may be misunderstanding what you're driving at here, Leo, but it seems pretty clear to me that you did say 'theologian' originally and not 'historian'.

quote:
Michael Gove asked him to write a history curriculum. No consulting history teachers. no consulting pupils.

Why would one consult pupils? Was the purpose of the exercise to determine what children should be taught (as opposed to, say, how they should be taught)? If so, I'm not sure why a historian would feel the need to consult history teachers.

quote:
He readily agreed and produced a severely right wing document.

Is there a link to this? I know nothing of it.

[ 02. September 2013, 20:38: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

Leo,

Although Simon Schama advised Gove on the cirriculum, he wasn't happy with the result: Telegraph report

"1066 and all that without the jokes"

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm with Laurelin on this. It was good - albeit very much a secular historian's fairly personal approach rather than a theologian's or an anthropologists. And, unlike some similar programmes, it had plenty of facts (and no ghastly over-egged "dramatic reconstructions"). Well done BBC for still making programmes like this.

What I did like is that it quite clearly did not try to present (and possibly controversial) views as "objective truth" or "exciting new discoveries": Schama was very clear in telling us about his personal approaches and prejudices. And I loved his exploration of what it really means to be Jewish.

Hopefully later programmes will tell us more about what it "feels like" to be a Jew today. Interestingly enough I am in fact 100% (secular) Jewish and come from a very similar milieu to Schama, albeit 15 years younger ... I have never identified with the Jewish culture and community at all.

My wife was delighted to see a former fellow-student helping to officiate at the West London Synagogue and jumped out of her chair in excitement!

[ 02. September 2013, 21:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

leo said

quote:
Michael Gove asked him to write a history curriculum. No consulting history teachers. no consulting pupils.

He readily agreed and produced a severely right wing document.

Schama produced a curriculum that Gove mocked for not being sufficiently right wing. Admittedly, it's easy to be to the left of Michael Gove, but Schama is not a right wing person. Schama says he thinks that Gove has some valid criticisms of history teaching, but he doesn't agree with the pro-British, polemicist, fact-rich style of history that Gove wants.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
he doesn't agree with the pro-British, polemicist, fact-rich style of history that Gove wants.

So he wants anti-British, pleasing to all, fact-free history?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why would one consult pupils? Was the purpose of the exercise to determine what children should be taught (as opposed to, say, how they should be taught)? If so, I'm not sure why a historian would feel the need to consult history teachers.

It depends. If what you are producing is a list of things that 18-year-olds should know, or a list of skills that universities would like their entrants to know, then the history teacher isn't much use.

If on, the other hand, you want to take the desired end goal, and then ask "so what should we teach in year 5" then the experience of people who actually know something about the typical capabilities of year 5 pupils might just be relevant.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
he doesn't agree with the pro-British, polemicist, fact-rich style of history that Gove wants.
So he wants anti-British, pleasing to all, fact-free history?

Exactly! That's why he's such a good historian.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I don't understand why an historian would want no facts; unless, of course, they are getting in the way of prejudice and propaganda.

[ 03. September 2013, 08:06: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

It was you who talked about fact-free history, not Schama or me or any historian I know about.

Facts are tricky things, of course. '1066 and All That' is a good example of the idiocies that can result from learning facts without context and understanding. But aren't we supposed to be talking about the Jews?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

No, you commented about good historians not wanting 'fact-rich' history and I said that fact-free history was what you want and you said 'exactly'
What's the problem with a fact filled history?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, you commented about good historians not wanting 'fact-rich' history and I said that fact-free history was what you want and you said 'exactly'
What's the problem with a fact filled history?

I think you need to tune your sarcasm meter. It appears to be on the blink.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.

I haven't watched yet, but intend to at some-point, I was hoping that you would expand this comment and explain what you mean leo, since if I recall correctly, by international agreement the Nation State of Israel does rightfully exist...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, you commented about good historians not wanting 'fact-rich' history and I said that fact-free history was what you want and you said 'exactly'
What's the problem with a fact filled history?

If history is too "fact filled" then there's no room for anything else. History is about a lot more.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I like the fact that he took for granted that the Exodus never happened in anything like the Torah's account.
I'm never impressed with a priori assumptions based on lack of evidence. It just seems lazy to me.

a priori = Made before or without examination.

I watched the show last night and I was very pleased to see that despite leo's comment, the truth was very different (I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by now). Sharma did quite an excellent job of navigating the tricky waters between literalistic and metaphorical interpretations, not dropping his anchor in any one place, or making any assumptions. He left it open as to whether the Bible was useful historically, but agreed that whether it was or wasn't the symbolic and theological meanings were still valid.

I was pleased when he said, very carefully, that "despite a lot of digging no hard evidence has yet come to light to make the exodus or the wandering in the wilderness an historical reality". I was pleased since a lot of people prefer to say more bluntly that 'its been proved that the Exodus never happened', or similar. Whereas Sharma's careful wording showed an apprecation of careful thought and accuracy rather than careless sensationalism.

The program covered a thousand years in one hour. Unfortunately this didn't give much chance to really get to grips with the Israelite BC history. It was very much an overview, and didn't provide much more detail than I already knew. But I liked Sharma's presentation.

And the dearth of detail allowed Sharma to focus more on creating a sense of Jewishness as influenced by a rich history, even when that history is sparsely known. I found it interesting that at the Seder meal they were discussing whether the bitter herbs represented the tears of the slaves in Egypt, or the Dead Sea itself. The people at the meal didn't know. Yet they appreciated the Seder as a touchstone of their Jewishness nevertheless.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

I looked forward to watching this as I quite like Schama and thought a proper historian's view of the history of the Jews would be informative and interesting to compare with what the Bible tells us. I'd like to know how closely independent, evidence-based study agrees with Biblical history.

My heart sank when he said it was one of *those* "a personal view" programmes, rather than straight history. I usually see those 'a personal view' shows as a wasted opportunity to do a decent impartial treatment of a topic, while still costing the same.

But this was still pretty good. I'll watch the rest of the series.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
My heart sank when he said it was one of *those* "a personal view" programmes, rather than straight history.

Isn't all history from the personal view of the historian?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on:
Leo,

Although Simon Schama advised Gove on the cirriculum, he wasn't happy with the result: Telegraph report

"1066 and all that without the jokes"

I am very pleased to stand corrected and agree with most of what he said in that report.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.
I haven't watched yet, but intend to at some-point, I was hoping that you would expand this comment and explain what you mean leo, since if I recall correctly, by international agreement the Nation State of Israel does rightfully exist...

And the international community has condemned its annexation of Palestinian land time and time again.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
I did not claim 'theologian' for him. That would be an insult to all theologians.

I said 'historian'.

I may be misunderstanding what you're driving at here, Leo, but it seems pretty clear to me that you did say 'theologian' originally and not 'historian'.

Sorry - I typed 'theologian' but meant 'historian' - should have proof-read.

It had been a long day.

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl : Liberal Backslider

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, you commented about good historians not wanting 'fact-rich' history and I said that fact-free history was what you want and you said 'exactly'
What's the problem with a fact filled history?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If history is too "fact filled" then there's no room for anything else. History is about a lot more.

Facts are just the data of history - the actual skill of being a historian is to sift the data to build up a picture of the period, writings, cultural worldview ,technology, art, law etc.

What do we learn from the cultural ideas and political / economic framework from years past and what would happen if we tried it again now?

Are we different from our predecessors or would we make the same decisions (even with the benefit of hindsight)?

And more subversively, what is the relationship of people to social, economic and political power, what factors unite a society and divide them - even to revolution. Who exactly benefits from having a war?

In other words getting the critical skills to find what History MEANS rather than just what happened.

A bland collection of dates of Kings , Battles and Acts of Parliament doesn't do any of that that - and i suspect that is more what Gove was thinking of - rather thsn 'questioning' History.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I enjoyed this programme, and learnt from it. I was under no illusions that it was likely to present any kind of theologically orthodox positions, and I didn't listen out for any. Schama was respectful towards religious belief, and towards his own religious upbringing, and I was pleased about that.

I did wonder when Jesus was going to make an appearance, and felt that Schama was skirting around him a bit. Maybe that's because Jesus appears more prominently in a later episode. I suppose that lots of Jews feel ambivalent at best about Jesus. This is likely to come out more and more as the series progresses.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Leo, hatless, Mudfrog, et al, you have noticed we are discussing "The Story of the Jews"? right? Let's. Discussing the history curriculum in schools can go to another thread, if you wish to discuss it, please.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
My heart sank when he said it was one of *those* "a personal view" programmes, rather than straight history.
Isn't all history from the personal view of the historian?

It depends how professional they're being. A professor of history given a chance to present a TV programme might reasonably be expected to give the best information available (ie supported by the best evidence and academic consensus), and may offer their own position, if clearly signposted as their view.

Too many documentary presenters are given free reign to put aside any pretensions of impartiality, and give their own views. I almost never want a 'personal view' or a 'personal journey' (ugh!) when a programme is presented as a documentary. It's a waste of an opportunity (and budget) to learn something interesting.

If there is a personal connection with the material, it's fair enough to use it to give a 'human dimension' to the facts and in this case, it was well done.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I enjoyed this programme, and learnt from it. I was under no illusions that it was likely to present any kind of theologically orthodox positions, and I didn't listen out for any. Schama was respectful towards religious belief, and towards his own religious upbringing, and I was pleased about that.

I did wonder when Jesus was going to make an appearance, and felt that Schama was skirting around him a bit. Maybe that's because Jesus appears more prominently in a later episode. I suppose that lots of Jews feel ambivalent at best about Jesus. This is likely to come out more and more as the series progresses.

For most Jews, Jesus is pretty irrelevant - just another pretend messiah.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

leo

Oh, certainly. But he's not incidental to the story of the Jews, even if he's irrelevant to their theology.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Too many documentary presenters are given free reign to put aside any pretensions of impartiality, and give their own views.

Possibly. But the worst is when they present their own personal views as objective truth - or, at least, when that is the impression that is given. Schama avoided that pitfall nicely.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I enjoyed this programme, and learnt from it. I was under no illusions that it was likely to present any kind of theologically orthodox positions, and I didn't listen out for any. Schama was respectful towards religious belief, and towards his own religious upbringing, and I was pleased about that.

I did wonder when Jesus was going to make an appearance, and felt that Schama was skirting around him a bit. Maybe that's because Jesus appears more prominently in a later episode. I suppose that lots of Jews feel ambivalent at best about Jesus. This is likely to come out more and more as the series progresses.

Unlikely. If he can go straight from Maccabees to Joesephus and the Roman destruction of AD70 without mentioning his name I'm sure he'll be happy to ignore him for the rest of the story. After all, Jesus had zero effect on mainstream Judaism. All those he had an effect on became Christians.

What may be discussed is how the Christian kingdoms oppressed the Jewish people, in the same way as the Assyrians, Greeks and Romans did before. That had an effect on Judaism, though Jesus didn't.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But he's not incidental to the story of the Jews, even if he's irrelevant to their theology.

I like Simon Schama as a historian, and I enjoyed the programme greatly. But in glossing over Jesus in one line, I suspect that Schama, like many other Jewish historians, has a "Jesus problem." This isn't caused so much by Jesus' own place in Jewish history, as by the abominations of the Church towards the Jews for two milleniia. By "The Church" in this context, I mean Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. From John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouthed, who was foul-mouthed in his dealings with the Jews, through centuries of Catholic Inquisitions, murders and forced conversions, to Martin Luther's evil spoutings, which were arguably a blueprint for the Holocaust, great atrocities have been carried out in the name of the Prince of Peace.

Fortunately, there is a group of modern Jewish scholars, such as Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin, who see Christianity as having its origins firmly within the Jewish traditions of its time, and recognising that both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism are descendents of the Judaism of Jesus' time. There are many things I love about Judaism, and so much of what we take for granted as Christians, such as ritual washing away of sins (baptism), the Messiah who will redeem all humanity, repentance and faith, even the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, emphasised in Catholic and Orthodox theology, all all firmly rooted in Judaism.

I noticed that Schama began his journey with Moses the Lawgiver, rather than with Abraham, the Father of Faith. This is significant to me, because, it's only with the Law, or Torah, given to Moses, that Judaism as such begins. Although Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the Patriarchs on whose merits the Jews depended for generations, the story of Abraham is as relevant to Christianity as it is to Judaism, as beautifully explained by Paul in Galations. When Abram's faith was counted to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6), it was before the circumcision, and before the Torah (by several hundred years). The priesthood of the Order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:11 from Gen 14:18-20) predates the Levitical priesthood by centuries, and is the eternal priesthood of Christ.

Pope Benedict XVI has written:
"The faith of Israel was directed to universality. Since it is devoted to the one God of all men, it also bore within itself the promise to become the faith of all nations. But the Law, in which it was expressed, was particular, quite concretely directed to Israel and its history; it could not be universalised in that form. In the intersection of these paradoxes stands Jesus of Nazareth, who Himself as a Jew lived entirely under the Law of Israel but knew Himself to be at the same time the mediator of the universality of God..."

I genuinely believe that the Jews, in their history of four millennia, have had the divine protection of God's chosen people. Perhaps they were chosen to bring the universality of God to the world through Jesus, but they remain a remarkable people. It's unlikely that Simon Schama will ever see it that way, but he is rightly proud of his people's survival against great odds, and their awesome achievements in the world.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

I really enjoyed the first programme, whilst taking some bits with a pinch of salt. The scholars have, as I understand it, three main theories concerning the nature of the Exodus, and no clear evidence to prove which one, or which ones, are correct. In contrast, the ancient fortress that Schama was shown was, as I understand it, important evidence that there was indeed a Kingdom of Israel in the 10th century B.C.

I like Simon Schama. For the record, in his capacity as Gove-appointed History Tsar, he did consult History teachers, and I believe students, before, like one or two other distinguished historians, he dropped out of the whole process – for some reason! During the final public consultations on the draft History Curriculum he made quite clear what he thought about Michael Gove's History Curriculum in rather colourful language: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10090287/Hay-Festival-2013-Dont-sign-up-to-Goves-insulting-curriculum-Schama- urges.html

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.

Calling Schama the tories' theologian is complete cobblers. And his "axe to grind" in claiming that Israel has a right to exist? When I was young we used to have a silly joke. If someone in the pub asked if you want another beer, we would say, "Is the Pope Catholic?" "Does a bear shit in the woods?" "Does a cat drink milk?" What part of you doesn't understand why a Jewish historian would think Israel has a right to exist? Whether land was "rightly" stolen from the Palestinans is another matter, but Plaestine was filled with Jews under a British mandate, and the State of Israel came into existence by a vote of the United Nations.

It was attacked from all sides by its neighbours the same day, as it has been numerous times since. It sometimes uses excessive force in retaliation to attacks made on it, but it has always been retaliation and self-defence. Israel has never initiated an attack on its neighbours, and lives with its back to the sea. I, as a non Jew, support its right to exist, and I entirely fail to understand why you wouldn't expect a man in Simon Schama's position to feel that way.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Israel has never initiated an attack on its neighbours...

I almost thought you were being serious until I read that.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
I almost thought you were being serious until I read that.

I repeat that I don't always approve of the excessive retaliation that Israel uses when attacked, from Golan, Egypt, Gaza or Lebanon. But it has always been attacked first, before responding. Any hypothetical settlement to the problems of the region, which I don't expect to see in my lifetime, would need to be a trade between Israel's return to its pre six day war borders, with a copper bottomed, UN backed assurance that no one will fling rockets at Tel Aviv or any other centres of population. And what to do about Jerusalem?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I repeat that I don't always approve of the excessive retaliation that Israel uses when attacked, from Golan, Egypt, Gaza or Lebanon. But it has always been attacked first, before responding. Any hypothetical settlement to the problems of the region, which I don't expect to see in my lifetime, would need to be a trade between Israel's return to its pre six day war borders, with a copper bottomed, UN backed assurance that no one will fling rockets at Tel Aviv or any other centres of population. And what to do about Jerusalem?

Didn't the Six Day War begin with a surprise attack by the Israelis on Egyptian military airfields? You mention the conflict, so you obviously know it existed, but you seem to have a very revised history of it.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But he's not incidental to the story of the Jews, even if he's irrelevant to their theology.
I like Simon Schama as a historian, and I enjoyed the programme greatly. But in glossing over Jesus in one line, I suspect that Schama, like many other Jewish historians, has a "Jesus problem." This isn't caused so much by Jesus' own place in Jewish history, as by the abominations of the Church towards the Jews for two milleniia. By "The Church" in this context, I mean Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. From John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouthed, who was foul-mouthed in his dealings with the Jews, through centuries of Catholic Inquisitions, murders and forced conversions, to Martin Luther's evil spoutings, which were arguably a blueprint for the Holocaust, great atrocities have been carried out in the name of the Prince of Peace.

Fortunately, there is a group of modern Jewish scholars, such as Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin, who see Christianity as having its origins firmly within the Jewish traditions of its time, and [b] recognising that both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism are descendents of the Judaism of Jesus' time.[b] There are many things I love about Judaism, and so much of what we take for granted as Christians, such as ritual washing away of sins (baptism), the Messiah who will redeem all humanity, repentance and faith, even the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, emphasised in Catholic and Orthodox theology, all all firmly rooted in Judaism.
...

Rabbinic Judaism is descended from the Judaism of Jesus' time but didn't have anything to do with Jesus, just the Judaism of the period. If you're telling the story of the Jews, there's no "Jesus problem" in ignoring Jesus. He's only interesting if you're telling the story of the Christians or the origins of post biblical European anti-Semitism.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
If he can go straight from Maccabees to Joesephus and the Roman destruction of AD70 without mentioning his name I'm sure he'll be happy to ignore him for the rest of the story. After all, Jesus had zero effect on mainstream Judaism. All those he had an effect on became Christians.

Some scholars I think believe that Judaism was a far more missionary faith before Christianity came along. Once Christianity arrived, it was offering all the advantages of Judaism plus eating pork. And no circumcision. It is at that stage, allegedly, that Rabbinic Judaism discovered that God had made a covenant with Noah that applied to Gentiles and therefore there was no need to evangelise.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
If he can go straight from Maccabees to Joesephus and the Roman destruction of AD70 without mentioning his name I'm sure he'll be happy to ignore him for the rest of the story. After all, Jesus had zero effect on mainstream Judaism. All those he had an effect on became Christians.
Some scholars I think believe that Judaism was a far more missionary faith before Christianity came along. Once Christianity arrived, it was offering all the advantages of Judaism plus eating pork. And no circumcision. It is at that stage, allegedly, that Rabbinic Judaism discovered that God had made a covenant with Noah that applied to Gentiles and therefore there was no need to evangelise.

Perhaps. I've never seen evidence of Judaism as a missionary faith or that there was a deliberate decision to drop it in recognition of Christianity or Islam as a successor to the Gentiles. I'd certainly be interesting in any evidence and not just the musings of scholars seeking to claim Jewish recognition of Christianity.

In any event, any Judaic outreach was probably a secondary priority given things like the occupation by the Romans, the destruction of the second Temple and the Revolt against Hadrian and it's consequences.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some scholars I think believe that Judaism was a far more missionary faith before Christianity came along. Once Christianity arrived, it was offering all the advantages of Judaism plus eating pork. And no circumcision. It is at that stage, allegedly, that Rabbinic Judaism discovered that God had made a covenant with Noah that applied to Gentiles and therefore there was no need to evangelise.

Do you have any evidence for either the Judaic missionary outreach or a Rabbinical recognition of a covenant with Noah for the gentiles?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Facts are just the data of history

Contra New Agey and pomo dogma, facts are the basic building blocks of history, but it is also true that:-

Data (facts) is not information.
Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not understanding.
Understanding is not wisdom.

I have not seen the series yet, but it sounds as if it would have been interesting to have included Marx's, as well as Freud's, ideas about Jewishness.

[ 04. September 2013, 01:11: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some scholars I think believe that Judaism was a far more missionary faith before Christianity came along. Once Christianity arrived, it was offering all the advantages of Judaism plus eating pork. And no circumcision. It is at that stage, allegedly, that Rabbinic Judaism discovered that God had made a covenant with Noah that applied to Gentiles and therefore there was no need to evangelise.
Do you have any evidence for either the Judaic missionary outreach or a Rabbinical recognition of a covenant with Noah for the gentiles?

A small piece of evidence would be the presence of Gentile "godfearers" and "proselytes" in the Jewish communities of the New Testament period.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some scholars I think believe that Judaism was a far more missionary faith before Christianity came along. Once Christianity arrived, it was offering all the advantages of Judaism plus eating pork. And no circumcision. It is at that stage, allegedly, that Rabbinic Judaism discovered that God had made a covenant with Noah that applied to Gentiles and therefore there was no need to evangelise.
Do you have any evidence for either the Judaic missionary outreach or a Rabbinical recognition of a covenant with Noah for the gentiles?

Missionary perhaps not but Idumea/Edom was forcibly converted in the 2nd century BCE (Josephus, Antiquities, xiii.9). The idea of the seven laws of Noah applying to gentiles seems to go back a long way, certainly to Maimonides in the 12th century and I suspect it is in the Talmud.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Perhaps. I've never seen evidence of Judaism as a missionary faith or that there was a deliberate decision to drop it in recognition of Christianity or Islam as a successor to the Gentiles. I'd certainly be interesting in any evidence and not just the musings of scholars seeking to claim Jewish recognition of Christianity.

I do not have an article with me. The most obvious evidence would be the numbers of gentile godfearers that Paul meets in synagogues in the Book of Acts. How did they get there if there had been no real attempt at outreach?

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Croesos:
Didn't the Six Day War begin with a surprise attack by the Israelis on Egyptian military airfields? You mention the conflict, so you obviously know it existed, but you seem to have a very revised history of it.

This is an exaustive subject worthy of another thread. But in brief. During 1966 and 67, Israeli borders were subject to Syrian backed terrorist attacks, which U Thant of the UN described as " a deplorable menace to peace." So Israel threatened Syria. As Egypt and Syria had a mutual defence pact, Nasser of Egypt started massing troops in the Sinai Peninsular. he then closed the Strait of Tiran, which was regarded by the West as an international sea lane, though Egypt disputed that, and decalred "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

I accept that Israel made a pre-emptive strike, but I don't accept that they started the war. They were surrounded by countries preparing for war against them, who had declared that intention, and were massing militarily to make it a reality. We may never agree on this, but I see this as a raction to foreign aggression, not as the initiation of aggression.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you have any evidence for either the Judaic missionary outreach or a Rabbinical recognition of a covenant with Noah for the gentiles?

Wikipedia article on
the Noachide laws. The texts adduced in that article for the Second Temple period don't talk about a covenant - merely about Noah instructing his children; it's only in the Talmudic documents, after the fall of the Temple, that there seems to be explicit mention of a covenant that applies to Gentiles.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Israel has never initiated an attack on its neighbours, and lives with its back to the sea.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I repeat that I don't always approve of the excessive retaliation that Israel uses when attacked, from Golan, Egypt, Gaza or Lebanon. But it has always been attacked first, before responding.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I accept that Israel made a pre-emptive strike, but I don't accept that they started the war.

That last statement is a direct contradiction of the first two. A pre-emptive strike, by definition, means "initiat[ing] an attack" and not waiting to be "attacked first before responding". There's more than just a semantic difference between saying "Israel has never initiated an attack on its neighbours" (your first two posts) and "the times Israel did initiate attacks on its neigbours it was justified by X, Y, and Z" (your last post).

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
During 1966 and 67, Israeli borders were subject to Syrian backed terrorist attacks, which U Thant of the UN described as " a deplorable menace to peace."

At the same time as the UNSC deplored Israel's actions against Jordan. And U Thant criticised Israel for its leaders pronouncement which were "so threatening as to be particularly inflammatory". Israel was making repeated threats to invade both Syria and Egypt, and had already commited military invasions of Jordan and Syrian territory in recent months.

And Egyptian fears were hardly baseless considering Israel had previously commited an unprovoked full scale invasion eleven years before in collusion with UK and France. An even worse example of Israel's blatent instigation of violence against its neighbours.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Please could we take the discussion of the sins, or otherwise, of the Israeli state to a different thread please.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

The 7 Noahide Laws are a product of the Talmudic era, not of the Biblical era. They were, and still are, little known amongst Jews. They were revived in their modern form by Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh of Livorno, Italy (1823-1900) in his book "Israel and Humanity" written in 1863, but not published until 1914(in French). Benamozegh's parents were migrants from Fez in Morocco, and he greatly benefitted from the relatively liberal religious outlook of 19th century Italy, so he was comfortable with both Christianity and Islam, seeing them both as compatible with Noahide living. He was also conversant with the ideas of Greek philosophy.

The modern Noahide movement has been highjacked by the ultra conservative Chabad Lubavitch organisation, which, although it appears from the outside to be an outreach, is just a clever way of keeping gentiles at arms length. In their view, Righteous Gentiles may have a place in the world to come, if they totally repudiate their past religious affiliations, but no Lubavitch rabbi would let a Noahide marry his daughter! They are vehemently opposed to all things Christian, but, of course, that's the sort of person who would want to be a Noahide anyway.

Not to be confused with the Godfearers of Acts. They were gentiles who accepted the God of the Jews, but who hadn't yet taken on the full yoke of the Law. In Acts 15:29 gentile followers of Christ were given the same rules as Godfearers, to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from what is strangled, and from unchastity." I suspect that the Church leaders in Jerusalem hoped that the followers of Christ, as well as the Godfearers would progress to the point of full conversion, but that they could associate themselves with the group on that basis. But of course Church history took a different turn with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some scholars I think believe that Judaism was a far more missionary faith before Christianity came along. Once Christianity arrived, it was offering all the advantages of Judaism plus eating pork. And no circumcision. It is at that stage, allegedly, that Rabbinic Judaism discovered that God had made a covenant with Noah that applied to Gentiles and therefore there was no need to evangelise.

I admit I cannot provide a source for this but I have read or heard that Judaism ceased to be a missionary faith as a result of some sort of deal with the Romans; they would not be persecuted as long as they did not persuade others to convert.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Some scholars I think believe that Judaism was a far more missionary faith before Christianity came along. Once Christianity arrived, it was offering all the advantages of Judaism plus eating pork. And no circumcision. It is at that stage, allegedly, that Rabbinic Judaism discovered that God had made a covenant with Noah that applied to Gentiles and therefore there was no need to evangelise.
I admit I cannot provide a source for this but I have read or heard that Judaism ceased to be a missionary faith as a result of some sort of deal with the Romans; they would not be persecuted as long as they did not persuade others to convert.

I could imagine that with the invasion of Israel by Romans, the destruction of the second Temple and the diaspora, the Rabbinical Jews may have made outreach a low priority.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But he's not incidental to the story of the Jews, even if he's irrelevant to their theology.
I like Simon Schama as a historian, and I enjoyed the programme greatly. But in glossing over Jesus in one line, I suspect that Schama, like many other Jewish historians, has a "Jesus problem." This isn't caused so much by Jesus' own place in Jewish history, as by the abominations of the Church towards the Jews for two milleniia. By "The Church" in this context, I mean Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. From John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouthed, who was foul-mouthed in his dealings with the Jews, through centuries of Catholic Inquisitions, murders and forced conversions, to Martin Luther's evil spoutings, which were arguably a blueprint for the Holocaust, great atrocities have been carried out in the name of the Prince of Peace.

Fortunately, there is a group of modern Jewish scholars, such as Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin, who see Christianity as having its origins firmly within the Jewish traditions of its time, and recognising that both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism are descendents of the Judaism of Jesus' time. There are many things I love about Judaism, and so much of what we take for granted as Christians, such as ritual washing away of sins (baptism), the Messiah who will redeem all humanity, repentance and faith, even the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, emphasised in Catholic and Orthodox theology, all all firmly rooted in Judaism.

I noticed that Schama began his journey with Moses the Lawgiver, rather than with Abraham, the Father of Faith. This is significant to me, because, it's only with the Law, or Torah, given to Moses, that Judaism as such begins. Although Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the Patriarchs on whose merits the Jews depended for generations, the story of Abraham is as relevant to Christianity as it is to Judaism, as beautifully explained by Paul in Galations. When Abram's faith was counted to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6), it was before the circumcision, and before the Torah (by several hundred years). The priesthood of the Order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:11 from Gen 14:18-20) predates the Levitical priesthood by centuries, and is the eternal priesthood of Christ.

Pope Benedict XVI has written:
"The faith of Israel was directed to universality. Since it is devoted to the one God of all men, it also bore within itself the promise to become the faith of all nations. But the Law, in which it was expressed, was particular, quite concretely directed to Israel and its history; it could not be universalised in that form. In the intersection of these paradoxes stands Jesus of Nazareth, who Himself as a Jew lived entirely under the Law of Israel but knew Himself to be at the same time the mediator of the universality of God..."

I genuinely believe that the Jews, in their history of four millennia, have had the divine protection of God's chosen people. Perhaps they were chosen to bring the universality of God to the world through Jesus, but they remain a remarkable people. It's unlikely that Simon Schama will ever see it that way, but he is rightly proud of his people's survival against great odds, and their awesome achievements in the world.

I 'Like' all of the above.
Thank you.

IU just wish the church would understand modern Israel a little bit more - if they understood the Jews and Judaism more then we might do just that [Smile]

I attended a barmitzvah and a wedding at the same synagogue in the space of a weekend and one of the great impressions i received - even from a Reform synagogue - is how much 'The Land' is vital to their history, their faith, their culture, their spirituality and their communal hopes. The land is not history, it's ever-present in their total identity.

I wish the Church would realise this and support them.

[ 05. September 2013, 11:53: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Support them in what? Taking bits of it not allocated to them from the people already living on it? That's the troubling bit.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Support them in what? Taking bits of it not allocated to them from the people already living on it? That's the troubling bit.

People already living there? They were deserted.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Support them in what? Taking bits of it not allocated to them from the people already living on it? That's the troubling bit.
People already living there? They were deserted.

I'm talking about the building of settlements in the occupied territories now, not what may or may not have been the case in 1948, as implied by your "were". Should we support that? Why?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

[should add; just noticed DoubleThink's warning upthread. Muddy - we can drop it or take it elsewhere.]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Anyone interested in the question of Judaism as a missionary faith might wish to have a look at Shlomo Sands's book 'The Invention of Judaism.' I liked it, but it has received a mixed reception.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Some churches have been running a Kesher Course. I haven't done it but I have spoken to people who have and they report well on it

www.keshercourse.co.uk

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wish the Church would realise this and support them.

I would have thought that Mudfrog's support for the Jews in the Land of Israel came from an Evangelical Christian perspective, similar to that of the American Bible Belt. But reading this, I realise I was wrong and I owe him an apoplogy. Having Jewish friends or contacts can enable us to see it more from their point of view. Christianity tends to be an other worldly religion. Pie in the sky when we die, as a reward for all our suffering here. Judaism is more about this world. Seeking eternal salvation would mean little to most Jews. It's about doing God's will in the present moment, trusting entirely in His providence for us in this world, with a hope that He may grant us resurrection to a place in the world to come.

Similarly, as Christians, we hope for the New Jerusalem of the next world, and we carry our Temple within. To Jews, the earthly Jerusalem and its Temple is the conduit of God's power on earth, the dwelling of the Shechinah. Throughout the long exile, the prayer is always the same at Passover seder, "Next year in Jerusalem." Although Jerusalem is regarded as a Holy City by Islam, it never appears even once in the koran. Try to count the number of times it appears in Jewish Scripyure! While none of this means that the rights of the Muslims and Palestinians can be ignored, those of us whose religious culture revolves around a Divine Messiah sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, should at least cultivate enough empathy to understand that, running through every Jew like a stick of Brighton rock, is the belief that God granted the Land to their people in perpetuity.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wish the Church would realise this and support them.
I would have thought that Mudfrog's support for the Jews in the Land of Israel came from an Evangelical Christian perspective, similar to that of the American Bible Belt. But reading this, I realise I was wrong and I owe him an apoplogy. Having Jewish friends or contacts can enable us to see it more from their point of view. Christianity tends to be an other worldly religion. Pie in the sky when we die, as a reward for all our suffering here. Judaism is more about this world. Seeking eternal salvation would mean little to most Jews. It's about doing God's will in the present moment, trusting entirely in His providence for us in this world, with a hope that He may grant us resurrection to a place in the world to come.

Similarly, as Christians, we hope for the New Jerusalem of the next world, and we carry our Temple within. To Jews, the earthly Jerusalem and its Temple is the conduit of God's power on earth, the dwelling of the Shechinah. Throughout the long exile, the prayer is always the same at Passover seder, "Next year in Jerusalem." Although Jerusalem is regarded as a Holy City by Islam, it never appears even once in the koran. Try to count the number of times it appears in Jewish Scripyure! While none of this means that the rights of the Muslims and Palestinians can be ignored, those of us whose religious culture revolves around a Divine Messiah sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, should at least cultivate enough empathy to understand that, running through every Jew like a stick of Brighton rock, is the belief that God granted the Land to their people in perpetuity.

It's really true.
When I attended those services it struck me again and again how much value they put on the land - and 'value' is far too weak a word.

I actually found it quite moving to hear the prayers and the readings that constantly mentioned Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel(well, it was Reform!) and the land that was promised.

I regret that overall, the Church came to believe a replacement theology - that the church has replaced the Jews in God's covenant promises. Oh what tragedy! Of all false, unBiblical, non-Christian teaching this is the cause of the 2000 year hatred of God's covenant people. The holocaust was the final act of anti-Semitic hatred that comes from the Church's replacement theology!

The problem is, I feel, that Israel (and like her Old Testament ancestors she is far from perfect) now suffers from worldwide anti-Semitic hostility: we can argue the point about occupied territories until the Lord returns to Jerusalem, but the underlying attitude is one of anti-Semitism:
"what right have you Jews to have the land?"

Theologically the Gentiles did not inherit the covenant promises to Israel, replacing the Jews in God's eyes as the elect; the Gentiles are, by grace, merely grafted into the vine. We share the promises, we have not inherited them wholesale!

No, I don;'t follow the American evangelical view particularly - the sight of Californian Christians dressing up in talith and yarmulka and dancing like Israelis makes me laugh! But I read what Paul said, I hear what the Jews say in services, and I just wish that we Gentiles would treat the Jews as brothers and sisters within the covenant of the God of Abraham, Isaace, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon - and of course Jesus who fulfils those covenant promises to Gentiles now and to all Israel at the second coming when they will willingly and with great rejoicing recognise him as their Messiah.

In the meantime, if we in the early years could have learned to co-exist with the Jews, allowing them to worship their way and not rejecting the Jewish practices and traditions in the Church's own liturgy and heritage, then the last 2000 years could have been so different!
The synagogue and Jewish story would have been so different, the Church would look so different, the Middle east would have looked so different!

Of course that's all very simplistic, naive and 'a bit late now!' But what would ease the problem now would be for the church not just to apologise for anti-Semitism but to recognise that the Jews are still God's covenant people, that "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Rom 11:29).

If we could stand with the Jews as a faith community because we share the same covenant (albeit as believers that the Messiah has come), it would change our attitude to Israel's existence, give us a more objective and understanding view of what they do right AND what they are doing wrong.

I believe the Church needs to stand with the Jews - especially against the Muslim world. Church and Synagogue should cultivate a 'special relationship' of respect, mutual understanding, common heritage, and hope; and even love.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Sorry, I forgot to say that there are many who would say that we should cultiate our common heritage etc, etc, etc with the Muslims - well of course that's very noble - going back to Abraham and all that; but Islam is replacement theology par excellence! Being the youngrer faith tradition they believe that they far and away supercede Judaism and Christianity and they believe they are covenanted with Allah through Ishmael of course, not Isaac.

We know that God's promises came through Isaace and then Jacob (Israel) and then most significantly to Moses who, as has been said 'upthread' is the one who brought the Covenant that turned them from Israelites into Jews.

We therefore share no covenants with the Muslim world who have entirely rejected the Covenant with YHWH, not recognising Isaac and Jacob nor Moses as the ones through whom YHWH made covenant and gave the Promised Land to the Jews.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Muddy, it's not "what right do you Jews have to the land?"; it's "what right has ANYONE to take land of the people who are there now?"

Accusing folk like me who think that a religious claim is insufficient to override normal rights of ownership of Anti-semitism is old, tired, insulting, and if you do it again I'll see you in Hell.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I'm not going to enter into a discussion about this because it's a tangent that could overtake this thread entirely. I'm talking about the the importance of the whole land of Israel to the Jews, culturally, historically and theologically. One needs to understand this in order to answer the question 'why do the Israelis want the land of Israel?' Whether their occupation is recognised by the international community or not is almost irrelevant to this particular context. We might indeed fell the occupation is illegal - but that's only because the western Christian nations made the rules! Had Britain or anyone else decided that borders should be different, well, who knows what the result would be today.

The issue here is simply this - Jewishness is not confined to worship, doctrine, cultural practices, language etc, etc and all those stereotypes that many will see as defining Jewishness; Jewishness necessarily and essentially begins and ends with the Promised Land. The land itself is part of the religion. It is inescapable and is an inextricable part of the covenant that makes these people Jews:
"I will be your God, you will be my people and this is the land I am giving you."

To deny them this is to deny their religion and that is antisemitism.

[ 06. September 2013, 08:34: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The land itself is part of the religion. It is inescapable and is an inextricable part of the covenant that makes these people Jews:
"I will be your God, you will be my people and this is the land I am giving you."

To deny them this is to deny their religion and that is antisemitism.

No one is denying that Zionism is one expression of Judaism (it not being a monolithic religion). But to follow on to your second sentence, you're calling a lot of Jews antisemitic.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Jews are not of one mind about Zionism; it's perfectly possible to be a good Jew without supporting the State of Israel. It's not a very comfortable position for a Jew to take, but there are a significant number who do.

The Orthodox Jewish theological justification for anti-Zionism (held, for instance by the Satmar Hasids) is well outlined in the first essay in Gershom Scholem's 'The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays.'

The Liberal, Reform, and secular Jewish anti-Zionist views tend to refer to ethical and political arguments, and, of course, to the Nevi'im--the Prophets.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Muddy - if you're not getting into a discussion about this then don't.

I am not willing to say "OK, it's really important to you, so that's fine, we'll chuck out everyone else currently living there, or make them second class citizens, just for you benefit, and fuck 'em."

I have a suspicion that the land is pretty damned important to Palestinian Muslims and Christians, on account of it being their home, where they live. Why should that play second fiddle to Zionist claims on the land? I know you don't like Muslims much because you've made that pretty clear from time to time, but that doesn't explain your "tough shit the Jews want it so they should have it" attitude towards the Christians.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jewishness necessarily and essentially begins and ends with the Promised Land. The land itself is part of the religion. It is inescapable and is an inextricable part of the covenant that makes these people Jews:
"I will be your God, you will be my people and this is the land I am giving you."

To deny them this is to deny their religion and that is antisemitism.

Like you Muddy, I am a supporter of Israel - albeit a non-dispensational, non-Zionist, and not uncritical supporter - but what you have written is simplistic.

The issue of what constitutes Jewishness, and its relationship to religion and the Land, is incredibly complex.

I am presently reading David Caute's just- published Isaac And Isaiah: The Covert Punishment Of A Cold War Heretic, about the rivalry between Isaac Deutscher and Isaiah Berlin, both non-religious Jews, but with radically different ideas about Jewishness and Israel.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We therefore share no covenants with the Muslim world who have entirely rejected the Covenant with YHWH,

I feel the same way about the Jews. We share no covenants with them since they have rejected YHWH. Jesus is YHWH and both the Muslims and the Jews reject Him.

To bring things back to the OP, I was struck by the programme as it highlighted the venerance Jews accord the torah scrolls. This made me think there has perhaps been a unfortunate prevelant strain throughout Judaism to idolise the Law. After the temple was destroyed their reaction was not to turn back to YHWH himself, but to turn to the Law and spend decades analysing it and clarifying it. As they describe the situation, they built a fence around the Law so no one could come close to defile it, even accidently. But in doing so they made an idol of the Law, and forgot YHWH. As the most striking example of this they even forgot how to pronounce his name!

And I think Judaism's obsession with the Land nowadays is another idol. To replace the God of Israel with the Land of Israel is a corruption of ancient Judaism, whose most faithful and inspiring scriptures came out of times where they had no land of their own at all. The Israelites originated as nomadic wanderers and aliens in foreign lands. I see Zionism as a corruption of ancient Judaism, not the truest understanding of it as Mudfrog claims.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I feel the same way about the Jews. We share no covenants with them since they have rejected YHWH. Jesus is YHWH and both the Muslims and the Jews reject Him.

Woah! We don't share ANY covenants with the Jews? [Confused]

The covenants CAME from them. [Eek!]

Our Saviour is Jewish, our Scriptures are Jewish! Paul makes it clear that we Gentiles are grafted into the vine. I am humble and happy to be in that position.

My views on this are akin to Kaplan Corday's, I think. I take a cautiously nuanced view of Zionism. I certainly don't think that modern-day Israel is above criticism (although I would waspishly point out that modern-day Israel is a damn sight more enlightened about women's rights - and other rights - than most of her neighbours), and I certainly would not slam every critic as Israel as intrinsically anti-Semitic, as my more fundie friends are (unfortunately) wont to do.

But I am also very wary of the Church grabbing "all the OT blessings for ourselves and leaving all the OT curses for the Jews", as Michele Guinness has eloquently put it. That is the darker side of replacement theology, and yes the Church IS responsible for much anti-Semitism down the centuries, and that can be traced directly to the pernicious theology of "well, they rejected Jesus so they deserve to be punished" POV. Ugh. [Mad]

As for Islam, I tend towards CS Lewis's view that it's a more simplistic and harsher version of OT Judaism. Mohammed, it seems to me, was impressed by the moral and spiritual purity of it all but put his own spin on it. *ducks and runs* [Ultra confused]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

This thread has some issues with staying on topic. Christianity and how it should interact with Judaism sounds like it might be a very good thread. Please feel free to start it if you wish to continue that discussion.

Gwai,
Purg Host

[edited to be a little clearer]

[ 06. September 2013, 11:35: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
...The Israelites originated as nomadic wanderers and aliens in foreign lands. I see Zionism as a corruption of ancient Judaism, not the truest understanding of it as Mudfrog claims.

If you were living in Russia a hundred years ago, then I think you would have seen Zionism as a practical solution to finding somewhere to live without being subject to regular persecution.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

My views, which I thought I was pretty clear about, tbh, do not come from evangelical American Christianity nor any form of Zionism, but were inspired by my weekend in a reform synagogue!! (Hardly a hot bed of Zionism or Christian fundamentalism I think you'd agree!)

I repeat: my basic point is that the Jews - and we are discussing The Story of The Jews - are 'onsessed', better: preoccupied, with the land of Israel. Their Jewishness stems from Moses who gave the covenant which included the land of canaan.

That's all i'm saying really - together with the fast that, agree or disagree with the actions of the Israeli government and its building contractors - that the land is part of what makes them Jewish. Deny them the land and you destroy the hope that sustained them between AD70 and 1948.

Kaplan, I recognised that what I wrote was simplistic and I agree with you and Laurelin.

I do not agree with Hawk or Karl.
Hawk, your post was very dismissive of Judaism and the covenant to the point of anti-semitism.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Again, Muddy, what about the non-Jewish people currently owning the land? What happens to them if you give it to the state of Israel? What of their rights to the land where they live?

Your problem here is you're only apparently interested in one perspective, and an extreme Zionist one at that.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

As I said further up the thread, you can be a good Jew without being a Zionist, and there are plenty of Jews who aren't Zionists, and even more whose Zionism is nuanced in one way or another.

Mudfrog, your weekend in a Reform synagogue (where you despised the worship as I recall) doesn't make you an expert on the subject.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Again, Muddy, what about the non-Jewish people currently owning the land? What happens to them if you give it to the state of Israel? What of their rights to the land where they live?

Your problem here is you're only apparently interested in one perspective, and an extreme Zionist one at that.

I reject your opinion of what I'm saying.
You also imply that 1948 should not have happened either.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

Mudfrog, your weekend in a Reform synagogue (where you despised the worship as I recall) doesn't make you an expert on the subject.

I never said I despised it - I was privileged to be there and found i could worship easily. I believe I commented on the seemingly careless way that the prayers were read.

I never said I was an expert; I am merely suggesting that the land is part and parcel of the faith and cannot be divorced from it.

I reject the Zionist accusation.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am merely suggesting that the land is part and parcel of the faith and cannot be divorced from it.

I reject the Zionist accusation.

Sorry, but that *is* Zionism. You can reject the label as much as you like, but while you hold Zionist views, people will generally refer to them, and you, as Zionist.

Alternatively, if you don't want to be called a Zionist, you can hold that Judaism, while rooted in the land, does not claim an exclusive divine mandate on the land. Because that would make you not a Zionist.

Simples.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Jews are not of one mind about Zionism; it's perfectly possible to be a good Jew without supporting the State of Israel.

Agreed - but I have certainly been accused of Anti-Semitism because I have criticised the Israeli Government's security policy.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Jews are not of one mind about Zionism; it's perfectly possible to be a good Jew without supporting the State of Israel.
Agreed - but I have certainly been accused of Anti-Semitism because I have criticised the Israeli Government's security policy.

Sure. The story of the Jews sadly also includes a lot of mutual sniping and vituperation. Which is 'loshon hara'--evil speech, a very major sin.

[ 06. September 2013, 18:23: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am merely suggesting that the land is part and parcel of the faith and cannot be divorced from it.

I reject the Zionist accusation.
Sorry, but that *is* Zionism. You can reject the label as much as you like, but while you hold Zionist views, people will generally refer to them, and you, as Zionist.

Alternatively, if you don't want to be called a Zionist, you can hold that Judaism, while rooted in the land, does not claim an exclusive divine mandate on the land. Because that would make you not a Zionist.

Simples.

Sorry, but I think Mudfrog's correct - the claim to the land of Israel is part and parcel of the faith. Zionism was about putting that into practice, by emigrating to what was then Palestine, and later by creating the modern state of Israel. One can't practice, or at least convert to Judaism without accepting that claim, but one need not approve of the politics of the last fifty years, or of the current Israeli government, for example.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
One can't practice, or at least convert to Judaism without accepting that claim

[citation needed]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Sorry, but I think Mudfrog's correct - the claim to the land of Israel is part and parcel of the faith. Zionism was about putting that into practice, by emigrating to what was then Palestine, and later by creating the modern state of Israel. One can't practice, or at least convert to Judaism without accepting that claim, but one need not approve of the politics of the last fifty years, or of the current Israeli government, for example.

And yet some of the most ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects are anti-Zionist. Their reasoning is that the Jewish state should not be re-established until the time of the Messiah (and that therefore the current Israeli state is an abomination created in defiance of G-d's will). Do they count as not really Jewish?

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Sorry, but I think Mudfrog's correct - the claim to the land of Israel is part and parcel of the faith. Zionism was about putting that into practice, by emigrating to what was then Palestine, and later by creating the modern state of Israel. One can't practice, or at least convert to Judaism without accepting that claim, but one need not approve of the politics of the last fifty years, or of the current Israeli government, for example.
And yet some of the most ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects are anti-Zionist. Their reasoning is that the Jewish state should not be re-established until the time of the Messiah (and that therefore the current Israeli state is an abomination created in defiance of G-d's will). Do they count as not really Jewish?

I think I've answered that question. One can accept the legitimacy of the claim to the historical land of Israel, without accepting the legitimacy of the current state of Israel, for example.

[ 06. September 2013, 19:40: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
One can't practice, or at least convert to Judaism without accepting that claim
[citation needed]

I don't have one right now, but it is surely implicit in the faith and in the scriptures and in the history of the Jewish people.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Sorry, but I think Mudfrog's correct - the claim to the land of Israel is part and parcel of the faith. Zionism was about putting that into practice, by emigrating to what was then Palestine, and later by creating the modern state of Israel. One can't practice, or at least convert to Judaism without accepting that claim, but one need not approve of the politics of the last fifty years, or of the current Israeli government, for example.
And yet some of the most ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects are anti-Zionist. Their reasoning is that the Jewish state should not be re-established until the time of the Messiah (and that therefore the current Israeli state is an abomination created in defiance of G-d's will). Do they count as not really Jewish?
I think I've answered that question. One can accept the legitimacy of the claim to the historical land of Israel, without accepting the legitimacy of the current state of Israel, for example.

Except anti-Zionist Jews reject the legitimacy of a present-day claim to the land of Israel. They believe there was a legitimate claim in the past, and there will be one again in the time of the Messiah, but none of that resembles anything which can really be called "Zionism".

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
One can't practice, or at least convert to Judaism without accepting that claim
[citation needed]
I don't have one right now, but it is surely implicit in the faith and in the scriptures and in the history of the Jewish people.

Okay, but on even a cursory inspection of actual Jewry - the diversity of what they believe and how they practice their religion - your assertion doesn't stand up.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
One can't practice, or at least convert to Judaism without accepting that claim
[citation needed]
I don't have one right now, but it is surely implicit in the faith and in the scriptures and in the history of the Jewish people.
Okay, but on even a cursory inspection of actual Jewry - the diversity of what they believe and how they practice their religion - your assertion doesn't stand up.

If this thread has demonstrated anything, it is that it is extremely doubtful if one can make any intelligent observations from a 'cursory inspection of actual Jewry'.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Okay, but on even a cursory inspection of actual Jewry - the diversity of what they believe and how they practice their religion - your assertion doesn't stand up.
If this thread has demonstrated anything, it is that it is extremely doubtful if one can make any intelligent observations from a 'cursory inspection of actual Jewry'.

The implication was that you haven't bothered to do even the minimum, hence the confidence with which you're making wrongheaded statements as to what actual Jews believe.

You're sitting at a computer, so you don't really have much of an excuse...

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

Second part - 'Among Believers' - was last night, focusing on how Jews have preserved their spiritual identity over centuries of diaspora and persecution. Powerful and moving.

It often made for sad and difficult viewing for this Christian, as Schama - impassioned but not, IMO, partisan - detailed examples of Church oppression and the pernicious theology of anti-Semitism (the Jews were to blame for everything going wrong in Christian Europe or wherever because they had 'killed Christ'). Such theology was promoted by the great John Chrysostom, such a great man in so many ways and yet promoting a Christian anti-Semitism which sounded down the centuries.

There was the odd glimpse of light. It was very interesting for me to hear how, in certain parts of Muslim Spain, the Jews and Muslims co-existed peacefully.

But both Christianity and Islam had a case to answer for, re: the concepts of holy war against the heretic, and in both religions' appropriation of raw secular power for nefarious ends.

I was sorry that the Apostle Paul was depicted in such anti-Judaic terms. Yes, he was the apostle to the Gentiles - for which I personally am most grateful, because without the Jew Paul and his passionate mission to the pagans, where would I be? [Cool]

But he also preached the 'irrevocable calling and election' of Israel, in Romans 11:28-29. He'd have been horrified at what the medieval church did with his teaching.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, I felt that Paul got a bit of a raw deal - from Schama after all, Jesus himself was quite scathing at (excessive) Law observance. Was Schama unconsciously picking up on the old "Christianity was fine until Paul messed around with it" belief that you still sometimes hear in Christian circles?

The Spanish bit is fascinating - we went to Cordoba a few years ago (in February - it was cold and wet but still fascinating!) and discovered more about this period. There is a good museum which portrays this flowering of Christian/Jewish/Muslim philosophy quite well. Since then Maimonedes (and, thanks to Sharma, I now know how to pronounce his name correctly) has crept into my sermons a couple of times, either to support my argument or to be disagreed with! He had a remarkably fertile mind.

Naturally Schama had to be selective - for instance he later concentrated on Lincoln and I don't think mentioned the terrible York massacre of 1190 - or did I miss that?

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Was Schama unconsciously picking up on the old "Christianity was fine until Paul messed around with it" belief that you still sometimes hear in Christian circles?

Sounded like it. [Roll Eyes]

Yeah, I've met the fellow Christians who argue that. [brick wall]

quote:
Since then Maimonedes (and, thanks to Sharma, I now know how to pronounce his name correctly) has crept into my sermons a couple of times, either to support my argument or to be disagreed with! He had a remarkably fertile mind.

quote:
Naturally Schama had to be selective - for instance he later concentrated on Lincoln and I don't think mentioned the terrible York massacre of 1190 - or did I miss that?

I don't think he mentioned the York atrocity either.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

And he seemed to suggest that the Gospels were written before Paul, which is just bizarre...

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Laurelin:
I was sorry that the Apostle Paul was depicted in such anti-Judaic terms. [/QUOTE

Unfortunately this view seems to be quite widely held in Jewish cirles, it was the opinion of the late Geza Vermes. Some of them see Jesus as a radical, if unconventional Jew, who was basically kosher, and who was executed for sedition against the Romans. They see Paul as having de-Judaized the message for the pagan world. This outdated view has been lagely disproved. Paul's Jewish credentials couldn't be better.

He was a Pharisee, son of Parasees(Acts 23:6). He circumcised Timothy, whose mother was Jewish (Acts 16:3). He took a Nazarite vow to purify himself (Acts 21:26). But he allowed the gentile converts to abide by the rules laid out for them by the Council of Jerusalem, which didn't require adherance to the Jewish Law (Acts 15:29; Acts 21:25). Christianity did become de-Judaized by the 2nd century, but that can't be blamed on Paul.

I particularly liked when Schama showed how the Jews had flourished as a people in Moorish Spain, but even then, the hope was to return to that small patch of dust promised by God to Abraham and his seed. Which is why, after a long and painful exile, the case was made last century for their return. If believing in a national homeland for the Jews, and believing it should be where it is makes me a Zionist, I own up to the name.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
And he seemed to suggest that the Gospels were written before Paul, which is just bizarre...

I didn't notice him saying that - I have just watched it and looked out for it but didn't find it.

More importantly, Christians do well to

a) realise that for Jews, Jesus was a failed Messiah so is unimportant

b) they preferred to live as 'dhimmies' under Islam that 'demons' under Christianity.

Christianity has a lot to answer form.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I enjoyed yesterday's episode about Spinoza, Mendelssohn et al.

Also the 'New' Synagogue in Berlin, which i have visited twice since its rebuilt.

The story of that synagogue and the complacency of those Jews who thought that they had 'made it', only to be gassed a few decades later, is a warning to all 'who dwell at ease in Zion,.'

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I saw last night's episode too and was impressed.

If anyone could make me a Zionist it would be Simon Schama.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

Last night's episode shwed clearly one of the great tragedies of Jewish history. However much Jews of the Enlightenment wanted to be French, Austrian or German, they were always Jews first. It isn't difficult to understand why gentile Germans, French and others sometimes came to resent that, nor is it difficult to understand why the Jews felt the way they did. In the nineteenth century, many scholars in the western world believed that progress would eventually overcome all the ills of mankind. Prosperity was rising across Europe. Medical advances were allowing people to live longer and populations were growing. Most of world Jewry (93% in 1930) were Ashkenazi, and they could be part of this never ending growth and betterment.

Yet, as we know, it all came to a crashing halt. As economies foundered, the Jews were still aliens, and once again, became demonised as they had been in the Middle Ages. Enter Theodor Herzl, an Austrain Jew, who came to believe that Jews could never be accepted, nor even safe in he long term, because they were always in exile, without a home. Hence the birth of Zionism. Obviously in the next episode the plight of Europe's Jews will gather apace, as will their demands for a homeland. I still believe that, despite mistakes made, and difficulties not yet resolved, that demand remains justified.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I want to comment on the accusation that I am a Zionist. I was reading the other day that a Zionist and non-Zionist agree on one thing - the land belongs to Israel.

The difference is that a Zionist believes that the Jews must fight for the land: that it has to be claimed.

The non-Zionist believes that the land will be fully restored to Israel by divine means.

The latter is my position.
I am under no illusions - I do not believe that the present secular state of Israel is the fulfilment of Covenant promise - but it is there as a sign of that coming fulfilment when the Messiah comes and the land is restored to God's people.

That is the difference. I am not a Zionist.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

The Council of Christians and Jews, founded in 1942, which has HM The Queen as its patron, defines Zionism as:

“The continuing legitimate desire and need of the Jewish people for a national homeland in the sovereign state of Israel”.

On that definition, I am certainly a Zionist. That doesn't mean that I approve of everything the State of Israel gets up to. And I believe that a just settlement requires a sovereign state for the Palestinians, in which both Israel and the Palestinian state would have secure borders. This, incidently, is the official view of the CCJ as well.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think that's a rather black-and-white view of what being a Zionist or not being a Zionist means, Mudfrog. I would very much doubt whether Simon Schama would advocate violence to establish and maintain a Jewish state - although, by default one might argue that he has to as that's how the current state of Israel was established - through violence.

Meanwhile, is it just me, or do I detect a note in PaulTh's posts and leo's remarks about Jewish 'complacency' imply that somehow they were to blame for the backlash against European Jewry in the 19th century?

[Ultra confused]

The over-riding impression I got from Schama's programme was that despite all their contributions to the Enlightenment, despite all their best efforts to contribute to what was seen as advancement and progress and the greater good of society as a whole - it still blew up in their faces.

The Dreyfus case is one of the most poignant examples of that. You could not have had a more loyal or committed French officer than Dreyfus. And still he was villified, still he was humiliated and defamed ...

If I've 'over-read' things into what you guys have posted, I apologise, but there seemed to a note in there that the whole Enlightenment initiative was something of a flop (which it probably was in some respects) and that the Jews shared the blame for that as much as anyone else ...

Hmmmm ...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that's a rather black-and-white view of what being a Zionist or not being a Zionist means, Mudfrog. I would very much doubt whether Simon Schama would advocate violence to establish and maintain a Jewish state - although, by default one might argue that he has to as that's how the current state of Israel was established - through violence.

And maintained.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

This Article is where I gleaned my definition.
The relevant quote is:

quote:
In 2008, when Taragin was 15, two of his schoolmates were shot and killed by a terrorist at Merkaz HaRav, a religious school in Jerusalem. “The tragedy made me take everything more seriously,” he says. “That was when I first understood that there will always be people who want to kill us – that not everyone likes Jews. I knew that I had to fulfil the things they couldn't, like coming here to Yeshiva, going to the army and taking it seriously.”
Fundamentally, he is driven by the same religious Zionist ideology that has inspired all the most determined settlers.

“THE COMMANDMENT TO SETTLE ISRAEL IS EQUIVALENT IN WEIGHT TO THE ENTIRE TORAH”
– Zvi Yehuda Kook, religious Zionist leader, 1978

Most observant Jews believe that when the Messiah comes, the Jewish people – who were exiled from the Holy Land by the Romans in the first century AD – will return to the land of Israel, and peace will dawn on Earth.

Central to the particular beliefs of religious Zionists is that the modern state of Israel is a manifestation of this prophecy. They argue that Jews should not wait for supernatural intervention, but should strive to expand and protect the state of Israel, thus creating the age of the Messiah themselves. Approximately 700,000 Israelis subscribe to this ideology (the population of Israel is about seven-and-a-half million).

Thus, whereas ultra-orthodox Jews, recognised by their black clothing, prefer to wait for divine intervention and are exempted from serving in the army, religious Zionists – who wear distinctive knitted skullcaps – believe that military service is a religious obligation.

There is the 'black and white' difference.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, but it's still black-and-white. Some of the original Zionists weren't in favour of violence ... if anything they were quite lefty and cuddly ...

I can see what you're getting at but I think that:

Zionist = approves violence.

Non-Zionist but pro-Israel's right to the Land but expecting it to happen by supernatural means = non-violence ...

... is too neat and unnuanced.

But then, so is the kind of pre-millenialist eschatology which you espouse ...

[Biased]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, is it just me, or do I detect a note in PaulTh's posts and leo's remarks about Jewish 'complacency' imply that somehow they were to blame for the backlash against European Jewry in the 19th century?

You won't find many non Jews who are more pro Jewish than I am, so I certainly don't blame them. I just pointed out that communities who keep themselves to themselves and don't integrate with their neighbours, are often resented for it. That's the way the Jews lived for most of their exile, and can be loosly compared to certain Asian communities in British cities like Bradford or Burnley.

The Jews of the Enlightenment, who Schama concentrated on in this week's episode, were those who tried to break that mold and be good Germans, Frenchmen or Austrians. But Herzl, who was grievously disappinted by the Dreyfus affair and the turning of opinion againt the Jews, saw that they could never truly belong except in their own land. As I've said elsewhere, I'm a Zionist if that means supporting the Jews in their own land of Israel.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, but it's still black-and-white. Some of the original Zionists weren't in favour of violence ... if anything they were quite lefty and cuddly ...

I can see what you're getting at but I think that:

Zionist = approves violence.

Non-Zionist but pro-Israel's right to the Land but expecting it to happen by supernatural means = non-violence ...

... is too neat and unnuanced.

And somewhat contradictory if we accept Weber's concept of the state as an entity holding a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

[ 17. September 2013, 16:01: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I thought that the final episode was balanced, even handed, giving post Israelis and Palestinians space and respect.

I am very happy to have been asked to write a review of the book of the same title (though he only goes up to the 10th century in this very thick volume.) Having a review copy will save me a fortune.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I thought that the series gave a very fair, balanced over-view which may, perhaps, give context to some of the misconceptions about Jewishness that most non-Jews have.

And my Jewish friends and relatives are also broadly in agreement that it was good - a first!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0