Kahane was wrong.
The real state of the Jews is New York State.

But this higher morality is not Judaism, it’s Christianity. No Jew ever said ‘turn the other cheek’ except Mr. Cheezis Crackers and we hung him for a reason.
It’s still a mitzvah to kill Amalek, it’s just that no one knows exactly who Amalek is anymore.
The reason Pinchas was awarded the covenant of peace is because he knew when he had to kill. He killed Zimri and his Midianite wench when they were in public being um not tznius, and he knew that because of this public desecration of G-d’s name he had to string those two up on a shishlik stick, Consequently, his descendants were awarded the priesthood.
Point is, tikkun olam also means taking out the garbage once in a while. And if you make peace with evil, you become evil yourself.
The other has contempt for you, you think if you open your arms, they will hug you back?
And theory doesn’t matter. It’s all about practical.

Civil Factual Discussion while lobbing cheap shots at other bloggers on the side? I’m not impressed dude.

I like the article.
I like Mobius’ decision to allow HT to post
I think Kahane’s bang-on with respect to the hypocrisy about the settlements and thier contribution to world evil.

“decided to represent the right wing with a Kahanist”
Who said Holy Terror is a Kahanist? All he did was post an article.

This is just typical inability to draw a line between Jewish innocence and Jewish empowerment.
I’m not saying the Jews who were killed in ’29 or ’36-’39 deserved to die. Many of them, in ’29 anyway, weren’t even Zionists. But it’s wrong to draw from that a conclusion that Jewish innocence carries over from the other places of our oppression into the Zionist project. It doesn’t. With Zionism, the Jews are the empowered party, especially after the beginning of the British mandate, and the Palestinians were reacting against the prospect of becoming a minority in their own state. One can argue with their methods of resistance, but to present it as a continuation of the mindless Jew-hatred that characterized secular nationalist Europe in the wake of the Church’s theological Jew-hatred is intellectually dishonest.
Also, this is the least offensive Kahane piece I’ve ever seen. Can’t we do better?

Sam- Palestinians were to become ‘a minority in their own state’- and what state is that? Jordan? And while Kahane was certainly not correct about the direct connection between christian european anti-Semitism and muslim middle eastern anti-Semitism, you’re splitting hairs, to some extent. what kahane was essentially saying was ‘different place, same hate’- which, to a large degree was historically correct, especially getting into the 1920s when arabs in israel realized the jews were likely there to stay. also, i would also say that this is the least offensive Kahane piece i’ve seen as well… i’m VERY glad another more offensive one was not picked…

In response to Sam: that is a grossly naive comment. ZHironovsky’s LIberal Democrats are trying to OUTLAW us in Russia, using the same Czarist bullshit as justification, an example of hostility a lot of naive people won’t accept: it’s not usually ARABS desecrating our shit in the West, it’s White Supremists. How does Israel factor into that? Most Arabs abroad just want to be left alon e – it’s why they left their original countries to begin with! WHat does Zhiranovsky care about Israel? What does the Aryan Brotherhood care about Israel? What does Le Pen care about Israel? Fuck outta here… that’s what Kahane was saying. And in the 80s, he was considered fringe because the dialogue was different: there wasn’t as intense a spotlight on Israel and Jews worldwide… also, our generation had yet to enter the conversation.

Monk: I’m not sure if you understood what I was saying, but that’s exactly my point. Europeans have a history of antisemitism that Arabs don’t. For them, it has nothing to do with Israel.
For Arabs, on the other hand, and there have been actual studies done on this, levels of what be considered anti-Jewish rhetoric in public fora (as opposed to merely anti-policy or then anti-Zionist to up it another degree) have been shown to fluctuate with the level of Zionist and then Israeli aggressiveness and success. This is, then, basically a completely different phenomenon from the European antisemitism, which didn’t change no matter what the Jews did. Therefore, it’s simply wrong (read: wrong) to say “different place, same hate.” Oh, and Bears for Israel: as soon as the French cut off Syria from Transjordan it was clear that the Mandate system was going to produce independent states in Syria, Iraq, and Palestine. The Palestinians, as the majority in Palestine, expected to be the population “shepherded to independence” (in the delightfully paternalist colonial language of the era), rather than having to wait for the British to protect the Yishuv long enough to achieve a majority. It’s pretty simple.

That’s fine. I clearly misread you and we’re on the same page to some extent… and yes, while I agree that the Middle East has not always been the pyre of Jew-hatred it has become; it is not an egg-versus-chicken argument: when European Jews were settling – as minorities, under the auspices of the European powers – Arabs were launching attacks specifically at Jewish colonies. Mainly because the Jews were in sort of legalistic limbo: the Europeans were at best apathetic to their plight, and the even moderate Arabs resented new alien presence. Which meant the Jews of that time became self-reliant and hateful of the Arabs, took action which encouraged Arab hatred, and so on and so on… or, to shorten it up: the Arabs were not our friends by the late 19th, early 20th century (even earlier actually). We were looked at as being uppity. A danger. And their motives for hating us may not be linked, but in Kahane’s eyes – and mine, really – it’s a semantic argument: the CAUSE matters less than the RESULT.  As long as we’re submissive and live under someone else’s rule, we’re fine. Great targets. Infinitely kickable. And as long as we rule ourselves, we are great targets, and were there a greater measurement than infinity; we’d be even MORE kickable. In my mind, it’s lose/lose. History unfortunately proves me right.

See, that’s just it: most people DO support Black, Arab, Muslim, Hispanic; etc self-determination. Because they’ve been oppressed, continue to be victims in many dimensions, and darn it; there’s guilt. No one ever really expressed that for us – until the Holocaust, which is why it’s such a frequent reference. WE could bring up everything from the shtetl to the Pale to the fucking Babylonian exile – but no one ever gives a fuck. The Holocaust is a palpable, recorded event. There is weight. It is something people can wrap their brains around – since we were separated and most of our oppression was kept out of the public eye, which is NOT the case with the above mentioned groups.
And to note: we have tried integration for most of our history. We have been segregated, singled out, persecuted; etc. So I think it’s fair we give the other end of the spectrum a whirl.

“Kahane’s party was banned by the knesset itself, remember?”
So?
“(not to mention anyone else Jews step on in the quest to establish out little hideout in the middle east). ”
Tell you what. I’ll agree to wait in line at a checkpoint (I’ll even try to play the violin) if you’ll agree to get blown up in a bus. Deal? Have fun.
“It’s dangerous for the Jews because it turns what should be a battle against hatred into a battle of hatreds.”
Not quite, because the “hatreds” aren’t equivalent. A hatred in the service of self-defense (which is limited to self-defense) is worlds apart from unjustified or irrational hatred.
“Either we support violent ethnic national movements (tamil tigers, IRA, etc) or we support integration and pluralism, we can’t have it both ways.”
Someone introduce this guy to the notion of false choice. It’s perfectly consistent to support integration where it’s achievable and where the alternative is unrealistic (could there ever really be a black nationalist state within the USA? would this be desirable to anyone?), and not to support it where it can’t be achieved.
“The goal is one of combatting ignorance through education and understanding.”
Yeah, we’ll solve all the world’s problems with one giant teach-in. The wrongdoers are just benighted little children in need of your enlightened tutelege.
The problem isn’t really ignorance. It’s willful ignorance, or cynical and/or self-interested denial of knowledge. These are character issues, and they’re too intractable to be solved by just education and understanding.

Man this is a challenge, anyone who equates black militarism with the basic tenet of Judaism called Zionism deserves to have his ass thrown in Ramallah wrapped up in a big Israeli flag.
And I’m not supposed to say anything?
Willful ignorance is when people refuse to face the facts…the Arab leaders were palsy-walsy with the Hitlerites in their day, the Arabs want as described in their own PLO Covenant Israel from sea to shining sea, and hey, yes, the Arabs want the leftist apologetic self-hating Jews as dead as they do the Kahanists.
Prove me wrong. I double dog dare you.
Kahane was banned because he read Torah commentary from the Rambam describing the ban on intermarriage.
And he was banned because of the leftist war on religion.
The war against Kahane is the war against thr Torah.

I will say that when I first heard Rabbi Kahane’s statements I thought “A Fasist Jew, what a bizarre combination.” I have gotten older, my views on the world have changed and as someone on this thread already said, the conversation changed, Now Rabbi Kahane’s comments don’t seem to be quite as far out of line as they once seemed to me.
What I find the most interesting about this entire thread is that the entire conversation seems to be about what the Rabbi’s point was and whether someone agrees or not. His point, as far as I can tell, was that we have always been hated because of who we are and what we believe and maybe it is time to tell the rest of the world to ‘go to hell.’ To some extent I think this is a valid concept, not necessarily workable, but valid.
Sam:
If the Muslims are not Anti-semetic, just against Israel and Zionism as you have repeatedly argued how do you explain two small things? First and most recently, why would only Jordon, and no other Muslim/Arab state representitive attend the ceremonies commemorating the free of Aushwitz at the end of WWII. This certainly has not got anything to do, directly, with Israel ONLY with the Jews. Second, If this only about Zionism and not a hatred of Jews, why were Jews, and other religions, second class citizens in Muslim/Arab countries. It seems to me that anyone who would repress another people/group, simply for not being of your group is guilty of hatred(racism). I will say this is true of the automatic hatred of Palestinians and other Arab/Muslims as well. The point is hatred does breed hatred, but in this case the question really is which came first.

Or Larry David?

J-
To paraphrase Cynthia Ozik in her story ‘The Pagan Rabbi’: “Skepticism is what keeps us on the fence [of faith].”
God doesn’t ask for shmucks.

Well, Dan’s sister… what in flippity-fuck are you talking about?!

oh shite, you’re kahane.. you probably like that wallpaper more than mobius!

yeh give my brother props.
um, HaRav Kahane did achieve smicha.
and in Hebrew, anyone with a beard is called a rav, but that’s irrevelant cause like I said, he did have smicha.

when European Jews were settling – as minorities, under the auspices of the European powers – Arabs were launching attacks specifically at Jewish colonies. Mainly because the Jews were in sort of legalistic limbo: the Europeans were at best apathetic to their plight, and the even moderate Arabs resented new alien presence.
Let’s talk about specific attacks on Jewish “colonies,” as you correctly call them. Which ones are you referring to? Petach Tikva, 1878? Gadera, 1884? Rehovot, 1892/93? You honestly think this was “mainly” because the Jews were in “legalistic limbo,” or might it “mainly” have been because a bunch of peasants who had formerly owned and worked on some land, no longer owned and were no longer allowed to work on it? I don’t know what your conception of human motivation is, but I tend to think of violence stemming from a threat to subsistence as more likely than from an abstract conception of “legalistic limbo” or some kind of “uppity” “alien presence.”
Sam- france did not ‘cut off Syria from Transjordan’. in fact, it was britain who made the effort to cut palestine away from syria. when picot and sykes were meeting to divide up the middle east, the french had a concept of Greater Syria that essentially included Syria, lebannon, and Palestine. the british, on the other hand, actually recognized the holiness of Palestine and one of the reasons they didn’t let the french have it was they didn’t want the most holy city in the middle east under french control.
You missed my correction of myself which was posted immediately after my first post. But if you think the British were recognizing anything other than their own imperial self-interest, you’ve got an awfully generous view of empire management. The Brits carved out Palestine separately partially because they had already promised it to the Zionists in the Balfour Declaration, and partially because they were continuing their old balance of power games. They had a promise to Faisal too, remember.
I just don’t beleive you. the palestinians assumed they’d get the state? they must not have been aware of widesread jewish lobbying for israel. they must not have been aware of the balfour declaration. even woodrow wilson, the champion of the ideal of self-determination, essentially pointed out that he thought self-determination of arabs in Palestine might not apply. so to believe you, sam, i would have to acknowledge an ignorance of world affairs by the arab leadership in Palestine.
No, you’re wrong. First of all, Zionism had ups and downs. Especially in years like 1927-28, when there were more emigrants than immigrants or the numbers were equal, Palestinians underestimated Zionist strength and thought they might be able to counter it in world opinion. Why do you think they didn’t resort to full-scale revolt against the British until 1936? They had an excellent knowledge of world affairs. Anyway, it’s not really even important that they thought they would get the state. It’s important to realize they thought they should get it. Instead, it looked like they were going to become a minority in a country ruled by Jews. What indigenous population in the world has ever welcomed foreign settler domination? It’s amazing how people can read this concrete political conflict as some kind of manifestation of an eternal, anti-Jewish hatred.
Sam:
If the Muslims are not Anti-semetic, just against Israel and Zionism as you have repeatedly argued how do you explain two small things? First and most recently, why would only Jordon, and no other Muslim/Arab state representitive attend the ceremonies commemorating the free of Aushwitz at the end of WWII. This certainly has not got anything to do, directly, with Israel ONLY with the Jews.
I’d need to know more details. Were other state representatives even invited? Which ones? And so on. Still, look at how your question instantly renders “the Muslims” the same for all time. I was talking about the situation a hundred years ago, and you referred to a situation now. Hello, we’ve had Zionism for over a hundred years! Many Arabs are uncomfortable with the way in which Holocaust commemorations are frequently turned into platforms for Zionist justification. The pro-Palestine group at my school came to our annual 24-hour vigil for Yom HaShoah last year and I thought it was really great that they did, because it sent a message that they are against all racism and all ethnic cleansing and all genocide.
Second, If this only about Zionism and not a hatred of Jews, why were Jews, and other religions, second class citizens in Muslim/Arab countries. It seems to me that anyone who would repress another people/group, simply for not being of your group is guilty of hatred(racism). I will say this is true of the automatic hatred of Palestinians and other Arab/Muslims as well. The point is hatred does breed hatred, but in this case the question really is which came first.
I don’t think this is properly classifiable as “hatred.” Jews held important administrative positions in countries throughout the Middle East, throughout the centuries, far more often than they ever did in Christian Europe. Also, you might recall that there was no such thing as liberalism or a conception of the secular nation until Enlightenment Europe invented it, and they didn’t do so well with it either. Why would you expect 7th-century Muslims to have come up with it? By the time of the late Ottoman period, the empire was in fact moving towards a conception of equal citizenship for all, as embodied in the many decrees of the Tanzimat — if the empire hadn’t been destroyed by the colonial powers, it might have been achieved.

Let’s talk about specific attacks on Jewish “colonies,” as you correctly call them. Which ones are you referring to? Petach Tikva, 1878? Gadera, 1884? Rehovot, 1892/93? You honestly think this was “mainly” because the Jews were in “legalistic limbo,” or might it “mainly” have been because a bunch of peasants who had formerly owned and worked on some land, no longer owned and were no longer allowed to work on it? I don’t know what your conception of human motivation is, but I tend to think of violence stemming from a threat to subsistence as more likely than from an abstract conception of “legalistic limbo” or some kind of “uppity” “alien presence.”
ROLF!
I love this argument that these were ‘European’ colonists. To be ‘European’ would imply we were integrated, accepted members of Europe: with all the benefits and power therein. You know, like right to own property, elect officials into mainstream government… which of course we had, what with the shtetl, the Pale, the ghettos… right. Total European equity. Look, at best, Ashkenazim were Europeanized – in the same sense that we were once Hellenized and now Americanized: we accepted the style and some of the values, but were never ACCEPTED into mainstream society.
Which is WHY there is Zionism in the first place.
So stop with the ‘Zionism as Colonialism’ spiel – it won’t fly here.

Right.
But ‘colonists’.
To be a colony means to be an extension of a greater core power. Whose power were we an extension of at the time?

Monk Eastman
To deny the colonial aspect of the Zionist experiment is to subscribe to revisionist history. I can’t really say it any more simply than that.
Mobius has posted this image he photographed several times when making a similar point. Look at it. The Colonial aspect of it was widely acknowledged until the idea of colonialism became no longer politically correct, after the British empire (and other European colonial empires) crumbled following the 2nd world war.