Culture, Identity, Israel

A new phrase for the rest of us

As I’ve written about before, I grew up with little connection to the State of Israel. Recently, I’ve come to consider the political, economic, and cultural realities that make advocating for the disassembly of Israel impractical and completely counterproductive to the struggle for peace, but I still feel uncomfortable calling myself a Zionist, or “pro-Israel”, because I have some deep abiding problems with religious states in general.
So what do I call myself?  Well, I’ve invented a new term.  I’m an ambi-Zionist.  Rather than being a Zionist or an anti-Zionist, I’m somewhere right in the middle.  Although I don’t reject Israel as a Jewish state, I don’t feel that supporting its existence is a component of my Jewish identity.  My political activism on the issue is not because of my religious inclinations, but because of my religious affiliation.  In other words I’m going to be associated with the issue no matter what, so I feel that I should engage it head-on and develop an educated opinion.   Additionally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn’t just belong to the Jews and the Palestinians (i.e. others can, should, and do get involved), so my activism isn’t solely because I’m Jewish.
Ambi-Zionism gives me the space to develop a Jewish identity unrelated to Israel and opinions traditionally considered Zionist, anti-Zionist, or anywhere in between.  Having a name for myself doesn’t take away the need to create an identity organically, but it makes that identity easier to describe.  I like that “ambi-Zionist” is fairly noncommittal but also quite expressive – it implies a level of open-mindedness and appreciation of diverse opinions that I aspire to.  My hope is that it will help bring me closer to that ideal.

48 thoughts on “A new phrase for the rest of us

  1. One of the things I like about Jewschool is that it gives me a window into the minds of Jews two generations younger than my own, and helps me recognize how the world has changed, and on how the Jewish world has changed since my school days and the years right after.
    Back in those days, the term that would have been closest to your ambi-Zionism would probably have been non-Zionism, in contrast to Zionism and anti-Zionism. Jewish anti-Zionists fell into two camps, the ultra-Orthodox who wanted no state that wasn’t brought by the Messiah, and the ultra-Reform who viewed Judaism as a religious expression without any ethnic or nationalistic component (which they saw endangering their status as 100% Americans). The non-Zionists were sympathetic to Palestine as a haven for refugees, and willing to support their human needs but not their nationalist aspirations.
    Meanwhile, growing up in a staunchly Zionist home in a “mixed” neighborhood, I was exposed to only mild anti-semitism — restaurants and hotels we couldn’t patronize, colleges with Jewish quotas, careers we couldn’t aspire to. And I was taught that we needed “a national home” precisely to protect our rights as citizens of whatever countries we lived in.
    Now I can’t prove a direct connection between the establishment of the state of Israel and the eradication of the kind of anti-Semitism I experienced, but both happened, as my parents had told me they would. And the new anti-Semitism, in its guise as anti-Zionism, reflects a state that is unfortunately not the “or legoyim, light to the nations” that we had dreamed of.
    There is more to our connectedness to Israel than issues of war and peace, and hopefully the day will come when leaders like Netanyahu and Lieberman no longer dominate the landscape. In other words, it’s okay to be ambivalent about the current political reality, but not about the Zionist dream.

  2. Larry, you make a good point that I think a lot of people miss – that anti-Zionism is in some cases a response to specific problems with the Israeli government. It’s also true that a Jew’s connection to Israel almost automatically extends beyond than issues of war and peace, which I alluded to in my post when I talked about how others will automatically associate us with Israel no matter what. However, I disagree with you that it’s not okay to be ambivalent about the Zionist dream. I’m not at all questioning the legitimacy of your non-ambivalence, which I have a great deal of respect for. But I am questioning the legitimacy (or fairness) of applying that same strong connection to others. It’s okay for Jews to be ambivalent about or to reject outright the Zionist dream. The point of what I’m saying here is that there are people like myself who have constructed Jewish identities that don’t include a connection to Israel and there are people who have constructed Jewish identities that include a direct opposition to Zionism. These people aren’t any less Jewish.

  3. Like.
    I think I’m an ambi-anti-Zionist. That sort of means I’m an anti-Zionist but feel more comfortable with folks who care about Israel at least a little, than with the shrill strident voices of the white, third-world-revolutionary-loving-left.
    (Anti-Zionist: No longer supports the establishment of a Jewish state to benefit the status of Jews in the Diaspora or to serve as a repository for our national and religious aspirations.)

  4. This is a valuable conversation and you raise important issues, Ben. And, I have a question.
    Given your remarks, do you think any of us can be certain that the existence of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people plays no part in our experience of being a minority among minorities in the world? Does Israel provide a safety net and an anchor that we so take for granted we are not seeing it?
    Might this be one of those age cohort dimensions? And, if so, would it be that the ‘taken for granted’ is operative among the younger cohorts, thereby making it possible to believe the existence of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people is dispensable? Which is different from saying Israel is dispensable, certainly.
    Molly

  5. I’m troubled by Jew Guevara’s definition of an anti-Zionist — does it mean that you favor the disestablishment of the state that already exists? That’s not ambi, that’s just plain anti.
    Let’s hypothesize a Palestinian state peacefully situated adjacent to a pluralistic Israel (full rights for Arabs, Christians, Reform Jews, non-halachic Jews, seculars, etc., but maintaining a Jewish character. Are you in favor of that Israel continuing to exist? If yes, I’m going to consider you a Zionist. If no, I’m going to consider you an anti-Zionist.

  6. @Molly, obviously I can’t hypothesize every single way that the world would be different for Diaspora Jews like myself if Israel didn’t exist. That being said, I certainly don’t feel that Israel provides a “safety net.” Given that its status as Jewish, democratic, and a state is constantly being questioned and in some cases downright threatened, I’d have to say that if you’re looking in the long term (and this will change once we achieve peace), Israel is not necessarily a safe haven. I don’t say this to diminish from the importance it has to many people, simply to point out that just by numbers, it’s safer to be a Jew in the US than in Israel. There are a lot of other reasons that a Jew would want to live in Israel, so don’t take this as a moral or practical argument against doing so.
    @Larry, if you look back at the end of Jew Guevara’s comment, he gives what I think is an excellent defintion of anti-Zionism: the belief that the State of Israel should not exist as a component of Jewish identity and philosophy. I could imagine a scenario in which a Zionist comes to support the disassembly of the state for reasons of practicality, or because of a feeling that it no longer embodies their philosophy. That wouldn’t necessarily make them an “anti-Zionist.”
    The point Jew Guevara is making (which I agree with) is that there’s more to the situation than just “supporting” or “opposing” Israel’s “right to exist.” These are all complicated concepts, and different people could find themselves supporting the same one for different reasons. For example, my current advocacy for the existence of the State of Israel as a component of the peace process puts me next to people who believe in religious states. I have no moral problem working with them, but it’s worthwhile to note our differences. Likewise, my theoretical opposition to religious states (including Jewish ones) groups me with people in the BDS movement, with whom I share many ideals, differing mostly on matters of tactics.
    We can’t just classify people by whether or not they “want” Israel to exist any more. We have to ask why and how.

  7. And I was taught that we needed “a national home” precisely to protect our rights as citizens of whatever countries we lived in.
    I’ve never understood this argument. How does the state of Israel’s existence protect the rights of Jews in the U.S. or France?

  8. full rights for Arabs, Christians, Reform Jews, non-halachic Jews, seculars, etc., but maintaining a Jewish character
    Larry Kaufman (or others), can you say something about how you imagine this working? If Arabs, Reformim, etc had full rights, how would you be able to guarantee a “Jewish character,” (however defined)?

    1. Larry Kaufman (or others), can you say something about how you imagine this working? If Arabs, Reformim, etc had full rights, how would you be able to guarantee a “Jewish character,” (however defined)?
      I see Israel working something like Brandeis University, which is a non-sectarian university with no official religion but where the buildings around campus have Jewish names and Shemini Atzeret is an official university holiday.
      The Jewish holidays would be national holidays (like Christmas and Sunday in the US), and Hebrew would be an official language, but all citizens would have equal rights, and the government would stay out of the religion business (and vice versa).

  9. Thanks for asking Larry.
    I’m an Israeli. I support the existence of the state of Israel. I respect and feel part of the Israeli collective.
    And
    I wish that collective would not have any laws that prioritize the well being of it’s Jewish inhabitants over and above non-Jews. It should not prioritize the legal status of newly arrived Jews over and above Palestinians returning from exile. It shouldn’t prefer or fund any stream of Judaism or religious institution at all, let alone with biased preference.
    One of my best friends is a Palestinian-Israeli. I’m a patriotic Israeli in this way: I want his country to be ‘his’ to the same extent as it can be ‘mine.’ Not one bit more. And that’s what Zionists, in general, do not agree with.

  10. I want his country to be ‘his’ to the same extent as it can be ‘mine.’ Not one bit more. And that’s what Zionists, in general, do not agree with.
    Agreed. I see myself as a Zionist, and I agree that we cannot agree on this point, ultimately.
    We do have to somehow try to find a way to do a better job of strengthening the civil rights of the non-Jews in Israel but, at the end of the day, Zionism manifested is a nation-state intended to be a home for Jews. So, maybe there is no way to square this circle.
    The Jewish holidays would be national holidays (like Christmas and Sunday in the US), and Hebrew would be an official language, but all citizens would have equal rights, and the government would stay out of the religion business (and vice versa).
    And what about the Law of Return? The national anthem? The education system? The makeup of the military? The flag? etc., etc., etc.?
    If we don’t partition the Land–and move the borders in the process so that Palestinian population “blocs” will be transferred from Israel to Palestine–how will this situation exist in another 30 years? What Palestinian would agree to live in a state resembling what BZ describes?

  11. “….The Jewish holidays would be national holidays (like Christmas and Sunday in the US), and Hebrew would be an official language, but all citizens would have equal rights, and the government would stay out of the religion business (and vice versa).”
    —BZ · May 9th, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    So Israel would be kinda like….a sunnier version of Denmark?

    1. Eric writes:
      So Israel would be kinda like….a sunnier version of Denmark?
      No way. In Denmark, during the Holocaust, everyone presented in public as Jewish; in Israel, they wouldn’t have to.

  12. A a not so proud member of the Israeli Nation (in formation) I see a day when Jewish holidays stand equally with those of other religions. Christians days will be observed, Muslim days, Nakba day, all of of.
    And I’ll tell my child – all those days are our Israeli special days, to commemorate and observe and respect all that has happened, and all the groups it has happened to.
    The most meaningful celebration of Yom Ha’atzmaut for me was in a village up north, with mostly Palestinian Arabs. They were visiting destroyed villages, noticing the stones, the cacti walls, the remnants of olive trees.
    It was a happy day, because I was included. And some other Jews. We came, and the event was Hebrew and Arabic, instead of just Arabic. It was all of us together. Sad for the horrible things that happened, but hopeful because it was owned by all of us.

  13. Jonathan, I think I want to live in a Jewish city (Tel Aviv) within a state run by a rotating case of Danish and Swedish colonial rulers. They shoot anyone who gets all strange about religion and nationality as a preventive measure. Reform temples flourish, as does tourism from the Arab world and Europe. Our mixed race Arab/Jewish babies become models in all the major cities, as they as so beautiful…..
    I’ll salute that flag, and shed tears of joy for it as well.

  14. Ok. I was trying to have a regular conversation but, as usual, that’s not possible in this forum.

  15. Jonathan1,
    I’ve never understood this argument. How does the state of Israel’s existence protect the rights of Jews in the U.S. or France?
    Consider the example of Romania instead, where Israel literally paid per head to save tens of thousands of Jews. You have to consider that, as wonderful as things are for Jews in America today, and increasingly less so in France, there are no guarantees. One hundred years ago, Jews were the educated, assimilated upper crust of Berlin, Vienna and Baghdad. Jews lived in Iraq for 2500 years. Who would have thought at the turn of the century that there would be barely a minyan left in all of Iraq today?
    You’re looking at 60 years of post-WWII history and extrapolating the unique conditions that have existed in this time into the future. Yet our past is quite clear – Jewish communities in Spain, Maghreb, Central Europe, even that same France and England, which for stretches of dozens or hundreds of years were allowed to thrive, were also periodically uprooted, mercilessly. There is no reason to think this cycle will not repeat itself – 60 is dust on the scales. A Jewish state can prioritize Jewish life and Jewish interests, when others don’t, and can leverage communal Jewish resources and weapons in our people’s defense.
    How and when it should do so is another argument, but that this is a basic tenet of statehood is implicit.

  16. @Jonathan1, “I’ve never understood this argument. How does the state of Israel’s existence protect the rights of Jews in the U.S. or France?” I think that, to understand this argument, you’d have to imagine a time when there was no Jewish State to protect (even if just by its existence) the rights of threatened Jewish communities or effectively stateless Jews. The obvious example? Although Iran threatens a Holocaust of another kind, it is difficult to imagine the industrial-scale Nazi Holocaust taking place in a world which includes Israel. In the world of states and international law/diplomacy that “protection” plays no role. In the other world of failed, failing and rogue states, perhaps it means a little more.

  17. @Anonymouse and Maskil.
    Ok. If the argument is: the state of Israel provides a refuge for Jews who might be oppressed in other places,then I understand.
    But, still, there is an argument that, say, American Jews live a better life in America because of the state of Israel’s existence . . . and I still don’t see the connection.

  18. I think you’re overly focused on the refuge aspect. Israel can leverage resources to protect, support and connect indigenous Jewish communities without them making aliyah. The question shouldn’t be how does Israel help American Jews, but does Israel need to help American Jews? Obviously, when things are good, indigenous communities don’t need external support.
    Israeli governmental and quazi-governmental organizations, like the Jewish Agency, are involved in counter-assimilation programming to strengthen global Jewish identity. The Israeli consulates are active in states like Ukraine to politically support Jewish non-governmental organizations providing services, etc.
    Lastly, with all the anti-Evangelical right ravings going on here, which I don’t buy into for the most part, you can make a direct point about how Israel makes life for American Jews better. To many Evangelical Christians, the State of Israel is a pre-requisite for rapture or redemption, or whatever it is they believe. The fact that Israel exists may incline them to treat their local Jews better.

  19. Israel benefits the free Jews of the USA in the same way Ireland benefits the global Irish diaspora or Japan the Japanese — by serving as a cultural base on which to explore the meanings of “Jewishness”, of “Irishness”, of whatever subdivision of the human family we’re talking about.
    You can only see the magic happen if you mix groups up and give them spaces to perfect and be creative with their unique heritages.
    This is true of all human minorities: cultural, religious, philosophical, political, linguistic, artistic..

  20. why just “minorities”? wouldn’t it go to say that even those human elements listed above also have that same “magic” on people who are not in a minority?

  21. To many Evangelical Christians, the State of Israel is a pre-requisite for rapture or redemption, or whatever it is they believe. The fact that Israel exists may incline them to treat their local Jews better.
    That’s a good point.

  22. @Anonyouse.
    So what does it mean that the settlements aren’t a deterrent to a Palestinian state? Either those areas will be annexed to Israel, or become Palestine (this is in the event of a partition, which I thought you opposed to begin with.)

  23. And, really, Anonymouse, there are various arguments–even in this stream.
    Some (you and maybe Eric) take the position that you are Zionists opposed to partition.
    Some (miri and JG) take the position that they are anti-Zionists, or post-Zionists.
    Everybody else seems to take the position that they are pro-partition Zionists, (or maybe pro-partition ambi-Zionists) and that the truncated Israel will then be a “Jewish state” and a pure liberal, Western democracy.
    I’m taking another position, though. I’m pro-partition, but I’m admitting that the truncated Israel won’t be a pure liberal, Western democracy . . . because it just can’t be both a “Jewish state” and a pure liberal Western democracy.
    Israel will be an ethnocentric state, intended for Jews (granted, an ethnocentric state which will try to synthesize the Western democratic paradigm, to some degree.)

  24. You have me all wrong. I think Zionism is an anachronism. I also don’t consider Israel to be a halachik Jewish State, but a State of Jews, which is fine, but let’s not confuse the two. I oppose partition not because I favor a messianic “Greater Israel”, but out of concern and desire to prevent bloodshed.
    If the Palestinians had shown a history of peaceful coexistance with Jews, I would favor partition, or I wouldn’t even have a choice in the matter, because it would have been settled in the 1940s. Despite promises by starry-eyed Jewish liberals, though, I know enough about Palestinians and Palestinian culture and factionalism to know that partition won’t bring peace. It will radicalize Palestinian society to Gaza-like levels, possibly worse, and ensure a generation of violence.
    I don’t favor partition, but if the steamroller is moving to partition, then it should be a partition that provides the greatest potential, no matter how small, for true peace. That must include a democratic, pluralistic Palestinian Arab state, and this is a point on which pro-Israel/pro-Palestine activists CAN NOT compromise on!
    The only way to ensure that it remains a democratic and pluralistic state is to allow for a substantial Jewish minority with an interest in preventing its own political disempowerment, which would be a natural first target for illiberal conservative forces. It could serve not merely as an ally in confronting those forces by democratic means, but as the proverbial “canary in the coalmine’. Threats against Jewish communities could then be seen as precursors to threats against other politically vulnerable groups, and against the democratic system itself, enabling corrective action to take place sooner.
    Again, I see this as a more pragmatic approach than walling Israel off, building more bomb shelters after the Hamas flag flies in Ramallah and sighing about how the whole world still hates us even though we gave up Yesha.

  25. I see Israel working something like Brandeis University, which is a non-sectarian university with no official religion but where the buildings around campus have Jewish names and Shemini Atzeret is an official university holiday.
    The Jewish holidays would be national holidays (like Christmas and Sunday in the US), and Hebrew would be an official language, but all citizens would have equal rights, and the government would stay out of the religion business (and vice versa).

    See, even these minor things are where I get stuck. How do you enforce the “Jewishness” (even in relatively minor things like street signs) of a state? What if the majority at some point decides that they don’t want Hebrew street signs or the day off on Sh”A or whatever? If you start with the notion that the state must have a Jewish character, however defined, how do you determine of what that consists?
    I suppose that one way it could go would be the US way – regardless of one’s personal convictions, Christmas is a national holiday and English is the lingua franca and etc. But presumably either of these things could be undermined by demographic shifts and so forth. And in any case, is a kind of Israel-as-Jewish-US really what we’re shooting for? (Pun unintended but noted bedieved).

  26. miri, you make an excellent point, especially considering how much of a fuss people here are putting up about growing Hispanic minorities.
    We’ve heard the bit about how you have three aspects of Israel: its Jewishness, its democracy, and the land, and that you can only keep two. But it’s worth noting that democracy may itself be fundamentally incompatible with state religion; what happens when the majority of the country doesn’t practice that religion? Will Judaism in Israel become secularized in a manner similar to the way Christianity has here? Not that there won’t be religious Jews (there are still religious Christians here), but maybe some secular version of Jewish cultural identity will become a component of Israeli national identity for the non-Jewish citizens. What would this mean for the character of the state? What implications would this have for Zionism?
    I don’t necessarily have the answers to these questions, but I think they’re worth discussing. Any thoughts?

  27. “maybe some secular version of Jewish cultural identity will become a component of Israeli national identity”
    You just described the vision of most of the founders of the State of Israel. They weren’t religious people. Many were atheist communists. They consciously re-wrote classic Jewish heritage texts, like the pesach haggadah, to strip it of all religious meaning and leave only the national humanistic parts.

  28. hey renaissanceboy,
    so you invented this term, eh??
    “American Jews who care deeply about Israel can be divided into three broad categories. The first two are what I call ‘righteous Jews’ and the ‘new Afrikaners,’ which are clearly definable groups that think about Israel and where it is headed in fundamentally different ways. The third and largest group is comprised of those Jews who care a lot about Israel, but do not have clear-cut views on how to think about Greater Israel and apartheid. Let us call this group the ‘great ambivalent middle.'”
    – Professor John Mearsheimer, 29 April 2010.
    http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/warpedmirror/entry/so_which_category_of_jew

  29. @Jonathan1, you said:
    “I’m taking another position, though. I’m pro-partition, but I’m admitting that the truncated Israel won’t be a pure liberal, Western democracy . . . because it just can’t be both a “Jewish state” and a pure liberal Western democracy.
    Israel will be an ethnocentric state, intended for Jews (granted, an ethnocentric state which will try to synthesize the Western democratic paradigm, to some degree.)”
    I don’t believe there’s any reason why an ethnic state or nation-state (such as Israel) can’t also be fully democratic, liberal and secular; basically Western. Many (if not most) of the states that uphold those values (e.g. much of Western Europe) were considered ethnic states until recently.
    The fact that Israel hasn’t turned out that way is another issue altogether, and has to do with allowing the most backward form of Judaism to have the status of an official religion, and just generally allowing too much of the wrong kind of Jewishness to severely erode both Jewish and Western values.

  30. The “wrong kind of Jewishness”? I suppose you’ll be the one to determine what constitutes the “right” kind of Jewishness, right Maskil?
    Who says there’s no totalitarianism on the left…

    1. “Totalitarianism” doesn’t just mean having opinions about what’s wrong and expressing those opinions on a blog; it requires having and using the power to enforce those opinions.

  31. I don’t believe there’s any reason why an ethnic state or nation-state (such as Israel) can’t also be fully democratic, liberal and secular; basically Western. Many (if not most) of the states that uphold those values (e.g. much of Western Europe) were considered ethnic states until recently.
    First, thank you for pointing out that there are different models of government/society. Most here rage against any idea that is not completely in line with the 2010 USA model–which, frankly, is a bit of American chauvinism.
    But,
    The fact that Israel hasn’t turned out that way is another issue altogether, and has to do with allowing the most backward form of Judaism to have the status of an official religion, and just generally allowing too much of the wrong kind of Jewishness to severely erode both Jewish and Western values.
    I completely disagree. Heredi control of the rabbinate is not what makes Israel not a “pure, liberal Western democracy,” as we understand that term.
    Look at the Law of Return. Look at the funding priorities. Look at the education system. Look at the military. Look at the civil service. Look at the universities. Look at the government’s relationship with Jewish communities abroad. Look at the flag and national anthem. Look at which days are national holidays. The list can go and on and on.
    A Zionist-based country will always favor the Jews. And that’s ok. Yest, we have to try to do a much better job of improving the lot/rights of non-Jews in Israel, granted, but the whole point of the country is to try to build a homeland for Jews
    . . . of course, it’s supposed to be a thriving, vibrant country, from which we are far–but a country for Jews is the bottom line.

  32. @Oren, I did come up with it on my own, and as far as I can tell, no one’s used it before. Aside from the rather nasty undertones of both Prof. Mearsheimer’s speech and the article itsle, his ambivalent middle is different than my ambi-Zionists. The Great Ambivalent Middle, as Prof. Mearsheimer expresses it, doesn’t know what to think about the concept of Greater Israel and apartheid (i.e. doesn’t have the same level of political literacy or interest in the issues surrounding potential solutions to the conflict). That’s not what I am. I have a great deal of interest and I’d like to think at least some amount of political literacy, and I argue quite fiercely for a two-state solution. I’m using ambi-Zionism to describe a religious or cultural identity and philosophy, in which Zionism doesn’t play a part in my Jewish self-definition. It doesn’t mean I don’t engage with the theoretical and practical implications of Zionism, or respect others’ right to self-define on those terms.
    I think Jonathan1 has the clearest idea here of what being a Jewish democratic state actually looks like in theory and practice. I’m in complete agreement with him about the moral and practical need to treat the non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel better and to create a second state. I also think his analysis of what has prevented Israel from being a “pure” democracy is spot-on. The question is how much we want to change that. Now, as an ambi-Zionist, my personal preferences start to come into play here, as well as the implications of my association with Israel solely as a religious state, as I wrote about over here, but I tend to put those things aside because they often prevent me from effectively advocating for policies that I think will actually change anything.

  33. @Anonymouse, You said “The “wrong kind of Jewishness”? I suppose you’ll be the one to determine what constitutes the “right” kind of Jewishness, right Maskil?”
    Whenever something (like ways of being Jewish in Israel) is the only one sanctioned and funded, it’s ALWAYS the wrong kind. I believe in Jewish pluralism, but my tolerance of other streams of Judaism is not accorded the same courtesy by those who see themselves as the guardians of “authentic” Judaism. I’m a real totalitarian when it comes to being tolerant of the intolerant, and the intolerable!
    Thanks, @BZ.

  34. @Jonathan1, I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you. Israel is (and should be) an ethnic state/nation-state that practices “affirmative action” when it comes to Jews and Judaism. An ethnic state does not have to be an unjust state, however. Most of our Western democracies are (or started out as) nation-states, but that hasn’t eroded their principles and values to anywhere near the extent that we see in Israel. The best example of this is the way Israel has used the old Ottoman millet system to transform Israel into a semi-theocracy, with the most backward form of Judaism becoming the only permitted expression of Judaism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.