Culture, Israel, Politics

Fuel for Chimpanzee Truth

I warned EV that his latest comic was toxic, and when humor lampooning the Zionist bravura makes even Kung Fu Jew wince, then indeed there is reason to suspect a Jewish daily would balk. So that’s why Gawker comes to the rescue to run “Dawn of the Chimpanzees”. (Click it for larger image.)
"Dawn of the Chimpanzees" by Eli Valley
Now what could EV possibly be saying here? That Zionism is an untimely regression? That idolizing a culture so steeped in “us first”-ism will corrode our universal values? That claims to Israel’s moral superiority are embarrassingly Pyyric victories? Surely not! He’s just calling for a Jane Goodall to translate for us: we’re actually civilized, when you get to know us and lower your standards far enough.

57 thoughts on “Fuel for Chimpanzee Truth

  1. I’m glad I’m not the only one who found this reminiscent of a Chick tract! I don’t even disagree with most of the messages contained in this comic and I tend to appreciate Valley’s comics, but this one is just a little too heavyhanded and insulting

  2. And so we learn from this that…. Zionists are the sons of apes and monkeys? Or that Arabs are subhuman simians?
    How pathetically juvenile.

  3. Clarification: By “warned” and “winced” I was concerned for EV’s bringing home the bacon by this comic. I personally think it’s spot on.
    I don’t agree with Zionism. I respect the historical conditions in which it came to fruition and the emotional place it holds in many people’s psyche. So without disrespecting the reasons or the people, I think it’s a bad idea. Stupid even. Indeed, a regression into a lesser principled era of ethnic “might makes right.”
    That said, Israel exists now and there’s no way to un-create it. A one-state solution (while philosophically and legally more sound) is a recipe for continued violence. Two states is the most viable compromise by all objective measures.
    So quit your gasping that this comic is anti-Israel. It’s poking fun at Zionism’s true-to-life shortcomings. Even if you’re staunchly Zionist you must recognize that from an American point of view, nationalisms in general look pretty silly.

  4. Even if you’re staunchly Zionist you must recognize that from an American point of view, nationalisms in general look pretty silly.
    Yes, until you start pounding down doors in Iraq looking for WMDs. You have your nationalism too, KFJ; right now its adherents are trying to stop immigration and kill healthcare.

  5. Hm KFJ.
    You always make me think.
    I’m a Zionist.
    But I agree that “nationalisms in general [do] look pretty silly” — with the caveat that they look the *least* silly when one is being persecuted.
    Perhaps there should be a different word for the “nationalism” of throwing off the yoke of empire/occupation/exile, and the “nationalism” of the xenophobic nation-state/of ‘my country right or wrong’/of the jingoistic dissent-shackling road that leads to Fascismtowne.
    From the perspective of a ideological-state, a nation-state looks quaint and problematic. But dont we, even here in the US, organize by ethnicity or religion when we face barriers that use those identities to prey on us? For instance the NAACP, the ADL, La Raza, the AIM, etc.
    To me it seems like nationalism can be (and has been) an instrument of liberation as much as its also an instrument of oppression. The question is how, and when, to use it in the right way.

  6. Yes, until you start pounding down doors in Iraq looking for WMDs. You have your nationalism too, KFJ; right now its adherents are trying to stop immigration and kill healthcare.
    I have to argue that I’ve been pretty ambivalent about my sense of Americanism up until November 2008. I’m reconsidering now.
    But point well made: ethno-nationalism specifically is the target of this comic then.
    CW: You always make me think.
    It’s an honor. You know the reverse is very true as well.
    Perhaps there should be a different word for the “nationalism” of throwing off the yoke of empire/occupation/exile, and the “nationalism” of the xenophobic nation-state/of ‘my country right or wrong’
    That’s a hard cookie. Really hard.
    jingoistic dis-
    -sent-shackling road that leads
    to Fascismtowne

    This was already my favorite phrase of the thread when I realized it’s haiku-like 17 syllable brilliance!

  7. Perhaps there should be a different word for the “nationalism” of throwing off the yoke of empire/occupation/exile, and the “nationalism” of the xenophobic nation-state/of ‘my country right or wrong’/of the jingoistic dissent-shackling road that leads to Fascismtowne
    cf. Hebrew Leumiyut vs. Leumanut (latter is bad).

  8. If your looking for a definition of Nationalism. I will suggest Orwell’s again. Both Kung fu’s leftist agenda and most forms of Zionism fit this definition:
    “By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

  9. All the subtlety and compassion of a Chick tract.

    Sure, but none of the idolitry. 😉

    Zionists are the sons of apes and monkeys? Or that Arabs are subhuman simians?

    I take it as commentary on the primal nature of the prevailing ideologies in the region. In fact, it immediately reminded me of Tool’s “Right in Two”, which I’m guessing was invented in more general terms, but applies particularly well to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

    Perhaps there should be a different word for the “nationalism” of throwing off the yoke of empire/occupation/exile, and the “nationalism” of the xenophobic nation-state/of ‘my country right or wrong’/of the jingoistic dissent-shackling road that leads to Fascismtowne.

    Nationalism is just playing hot-potato with that yoke, by perpetuating xenophobia though jingoism and all that fascist groove thing. Actually getting rid of the yoke requires we all put an end to such nonsense.

  10. >>I take it as commentary on the primal nature of the prevailing ideologies in the region.
    The prevailing ideology of Israelis is that they’d like to live quietly on their tiny plot of land and be left alone. And the prevailing ideology of Arabs is…..?
    (Not quite as placid is it?)

  11. If the prevailing ideology of Israel were as you claim, there would be no settlements in the West Bank, and Israel would have made a reasonable offer of compensation in exchange for the refugees right of return a long time ago.

  12. as a chimp, I think the point isn’t to make fun of Zionism or Israelis, but rather at American Jews, and their awe of the Israeli army, to Israel, etc.

  13. Kyleb, why is Jewish residence in the West Bank more provocative than Jewish residence in the land labeled “Israel” proper? The “West Bank” is an arbitrary dashed line beyond which the Jordanian army couldn’t proceed further in its attempt to destroy Israel in 1948-49. It just has zero historical, moral or geopolitical weight. It’s less meaningful than a new ZIP code.
    I don’t know if you’re familiar with diplomatic or political history, but Israel has been negotiating with Arab states and then the PLO for decades. Its offers have been rejected (except its offer to Egypt to hand over the Sinai peninsula and billions of dollars of advanced weaponry in exchange for “OK, we promise, we’ll stop attacking you.”)
    More fundamentally I can’t figure out why it would be Israel’s obligation to “compensate” the people who started the war in the first place. Is the country actually supposed to apologize for surviving?

  14. I can’t figure out why it would be Israel’s obligation to “compensate” the people who started the war in the first place. Is the country actually supposed to apologize for surviving?
    Sigh.
    Because the individuals who “started the war” are not necessarily the same individuals who got their property stolen.
    The implication of your question is pretty immoral: if a nation is attacked, can it kick its opponents ass, displace all their civilians, and then keep their property? The answer is NO, they CANNOT. The property is still the latter’s property and even in a defensive war, you can’t steal.

  15. >>The implication of your question is pretty immoral: if a nation is attacked, can it kick its opponents ass, displace all their civilians, and then keep their property?
    If you go according to precedent the answer is clearly yes. In fact I’m aware of no example to the contrary. (Happy to hear one if you can find one)
    One reason for that is obviously because the side that starts a war of aggression is first obligated to compensate the victim country and society for their losses.

  16. Kyleb, why is Jewish residence in the West Bank more provocative than Jewish residence in the land labeled “Israel” proper?

    Jewish residence in either location is not inherently provocative at all, but Israeli residence in Palestinian territory is exceedingly so.

    The “West Bank” is an arbitrary dashed line beyond which the Jordanian army couldn’t proceed further in its attempt to destroy Israel in 1948-49. It just has zero historical, moral or geopolitical weight. It’s less meaningful than a new ZIP code.

    Rather the history of the border starts in 1947 the King of Jordan made an agreement with the Jewish Agency for Palestine not to proceed further than the West Bank or attempt to destroy Israel, in exchange for Israel not interfering with Jordan’s attempt to annex the West Bank. However, the West Bank remained Palestinian territory as affirmed by the UN partition plan, and as it remains today. Jordan never had any right to any of annex any of it, just as Israel has no right to annex or colonize any of it either.

    I don’t know if you’re familiar with diplomatic or political history, but Israel has been negotiating with Arab states and then the PLO for decades. Its offers have been rejected (except its offer to Egypt to hand over the Sinai peninsula and billions of dollars of advanced weaponry in exchange for “OK, we promise, we’ll stop attacking you.”)

    I am familiar enough know you recount is not historically sound.

    More fundamentally I can’t figure out why it would be Israel’s obligation to “compensate” the people who started the war in the first place. Is the country actually supposed to apologize for surviving?

    Note that durring the months before the the Arab nations declared war on Israel, Zionist militias and and terrorist groups drove off hundreds of thousands of Arabs from across both sides of the UN partition. Besides, even if Israel had been simply minding its own business as many have been mislead to imagine; the points Prasnis mentioned above would still stand.

    If you go according to precedent the answer is clearly yes. In fact I’m aware of no example to the contrary. (Happy to hear one if you can find one)

    One would have to dig rather far back in history to find another example of a nation can it kicking its opponents ass, displacing all their civilians, keeping their property, and then getting away with it. Hence the perception of the prevailing ideology in Israel being of a primal nature.

  17. One would have to dig rather far back in history to find another example of a nation can it kicking its opponents ass, displacing all their civilians, keeping their property, and then getting away with it.
    Wow. Is that a joke?
    Pick a nation.

  18. Well I had meant to edit the “can it” bit out when rephrasing my statement, but aside from that I stand by it. Feel free to present whatever you consider to be the most recent example to the contrary.

  19. Sudan in Darfur, China in Tibet, Russia in Chechnya and Georgia, and these are the easy ones. What do you think happened to the homes and property of one million Jews who left Arab countries? What happened to the land and property of Jews who were kicked out of Jerusalem by the Jordanians? What happened to the Jews pogromed in Tzvas and Hebron? What happened to the Jewish communities of Gaza just four years ago?! What happened to the Jewish communities of Gaza in 1967? What are the Palestinians demanding that Jews in the West Bank do today?! WWII and its aftermath involved MASSIVE forced transfers of populations, and not just by the Germans. What do you think the Romanians and Ukrainians did to my family’s properties after the war in those countries? And before them it was the Russians, and before them it was the Turks. The Poles did it to the Germans, the Russians did it to EVERYONE they could get their hands on. What do you think happened to the Native Americans? What happened to the Aborigines in Australia? What happened during the Muslim Arab conquest of the Middle East, Maghreb and Andalusia? What happened to the Scotts, Irish and dozens of other nations by the British? What happened every single time the Jews were kicked out of Poland, or England, or Spain, or some German fiefdom?
    Population transfer is what happens in war. You choose to fight, you lose, you die or you move. That’s it. The Arabs who are gone are gone forever, period. And if the rest of the Arabs keep fighting they will and should lose whatever they have as well.

  20. Let’s keep this list going…
    India and Pakistan. Greece and Turkey. Turkey and the Kurds. Turkey and Armenia. America and Mexico. Yugoslavia. Lebanon. Britain and the Chagoseans. Kuwait and every other Gulf state and the Palestinians. The Shia and Sunnis in Iraq. The Sunnis and Kurds in Iraq. And… MOST recently, the Pashtuns in Pakistan.

  21. But what does all of this arguing accomplish? For any point kyleb makes, a counter-point can be made regarding all of the Palestinians’ errors/faults . . . but what does that accomplish?
    There are two groups, fighting for the same land, both are whom are completely right (or completley wrong.) That’s the story of the Israeli-Palestinian 100-year-war.
    Is it not wiser to figure out a way forward? To try to figure out a way to divide the land so that they can go about trying to build their lives, and we ours?
    I’d be willing to bet that virtually no Palestinian wants to here about the horros they’ve done to Israelis over the years, and I don’t think many Israelis lose any sleep at night because there once were some Arab villages at today’s Ben-Gurion Airport and Tel Aviv U. (I sure won’t lose any sleep over it, believe me.)

  22. Mika, I had specifically requested “whatever you consider to be the most recent example” of “a nation kicking its opponents ass, displacing all their civilians, keeping their property, and then getting away with it.” I did not ask for a list of every conflict you can manage to rattle off the top of your head regardless of if they adhere to the characteristics I stipulated or not, and I’m not about to wade though such nonsense.

  23. Kyleb, you seem unable to acknowledge that your claim was simply untrue.
    KFJ, you said:
    “‘If you go according to precedent the answer is clearly yes.’
    If you go according to precedent, genocide and anti-Semitism is A-okay.”
    Sorry man — invalid comparison. Genocide and anti-Semitism are inherently immoral. Defensive warfare is not.

  24. One would have to dig rather far back in history to find another example of a nation can it kicking its opponents ass, displacing all their civilians, keeping their property, and then getting away with it.
    Well, for what it’s worth, this statement seems obviously wrong to me as well. Which doesn’t make the fact of unpunished aggression and displacement any less horrible.

  25. Eric, you seem incapable of comprehending my claim, let alone presenting a rational argument against it. You also seem incapable of acknowledging my dispute with your “defensive war” claim.
    Miri, could you please present whatever you consider to be the most recent example to the contrary of my statement, so I may address it specifically?

  26. Don’t answer Miri. Don’t enter this strange line of thinking.
    Kyleb, even if this were true: One would have to dig rather far back in history to find another example of a nation can it kicking its opponents ass, displacing all their civilians, keeping their property, and then getting away with it. (other than the line that ALL Arab civilians were displaced–which is a patent lie.)
    What would it prove if it’s true though? You’re saying that hundreds of thousands of people losing their homes is only problematic because it is unprecedented in recent times.
    It doesn’t necessarily mean the Israel was at fault in ’47-’49 because there isn’t a precedent, and even if there were an exact precedent, it wouldn’t prove Israel’s “innocence.”
    As for that birthright rap video you posted, it’s not 1959, it’s 2009. Anybody who wants to know the story of expelled Arabs can do so in a simple google search. Of course, the expulsion of ’48-’49 is only part of the larger story of the 100-year Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, good luck to the people who think the approach of that video will turn American Jews off to Zionism, or make many Israelis reconsider their own political views.

  27. the problem is
    we want to have our cake and eat it too
    we want to be able to operate “just like everybody else” (the goal of at least certain kinds of Zionism,no?)
    but then we still want to think of ourselves as
    the “different people”, the special people
    but how different are we now
    that we’ve got a state like everybody else, a military like everybody else (with nukes to boot!), a politicized religion like everybody else, a nationalism like everybody else, minorities in our midst just like everybody else
    how different are we now?

  28. how different are we now?
    What makes us special is not a country, a military with nukes, a politicized religion, nationalism, minorities in our midst, etc. These are important accomplishments, but they make us no different from any other people. Where did this idea come from that we should be landless, defenseless, etc. to make ourselves feel “special”?
    Think back to the kingdoms of David and Solomon, our golden age. Then, too, we had a country, a (strong) military, a politicized religion, nationalism, minorities in our midst, etc.
    What makes us different is not that we should be rejecting these things of normal existence as a people. It is normal for the Jewish people to have a homeland. It is normal for us to defend ourselves from invasion and murder. It is normal for us to quarrel amongst ourselves, to feel pride in our nation. It is normal for us to have minorities in our midst.
    What is not normal is to dissociate this experience from our primary purpose for existence. Must I drop the “T” word, or do you get the message? Whereas other nations exist to exist, we exist for a specific purpose. That purpose is what makes us special, not the impressive achievements of Zionism.

  29. Kyleb, even if this were true: One would have to dig rather far back in history to find another example of a nation can it kicking its opponents ass, displacing all their civilians, keeping their property, and then getting away with it. (other than the line that ALL Arab civilians were displaced–which is a patent lie.)

    Note that the claim originated with Prasnis, and while it is an overstatement, I highly doubt he made it with any intention to deceive. Regardless, I am not hinging my position on any overgeneralization here.

    What would it prove if it’s true though? You’re saying that hundreds of thousands of people losing their homes is only problematic because it is unprecedented in recent times.

    Most directly, it disproves Eric’s claim to the contrary. More generally, it supports EV’s metaphorical use of primates.
    As for your arguments against the video, this information age has the unfortunate effect of making it equally easy to stumble upon disinformation, which many are mislead by. Also, while I know many are so set in their ways as to be impervious to to any of the facts as presented in the video, respecting the possibility that it could spark an interest to learn more in at least one person here, I consider it well worth posting.

  30. Ok. That’s your right of course. I just don’t think the approach of the video–at least as I took it to be–will affect many people (it certainly wouldn’t affect me.)
    But, I could very well be wrong, as I usually am.
    Shabbat Shalom.

  31. Mika,okay, that’s a partial answer. But for what tachlis do we exist? To be “a light unto the nations?” Well then what exemplary and radical ideas has Medinat Yisrael brought forth since its inception? What has Israel contributed to the world that sets it apart as different?

  32. Koheleth,
    I guess I did need to drop the T word – Torah!
    We don’t exist to be “a light unto the nations”. We exist to serve G-d. That is why we the Jewish people were created as a nation, and that is the reason we exist to this day. By our very existence we ARE a light on to the nations.
    G-d gave us this book, the Torah, maybe you’ve heard of it. It’s all about how there is nothing but G-d. How in the heavens above and on the earth below there is nothing but Him. It then goes and tells us exactly what we as Jews should be doing in this world. And if you are confused, we’ve even had two thousands years of codifiers break it down for us.
    Turning back to your question, that is what makes us special – our relationship with G-d – not our having nukes.
    You need an internationally acceptable, post-modern justification for the State of Israel to exist? Why? Why is it that the Canadians or the Irish never ask such questions? Why is the approval of others so important to you? Israel exists, end of story. Having Israel doesn’t make us special, it makes us normal. You want something special? Go do that Torah thing.

  33. Why? Why is it that the canadians or the irish are never worried about the end of their Anglican/Catholic/White majority (and if they are, it’s racist xenophobia)? Why is it that the Cs and Is try to attract people to their countries by more than guilt and a false sense of historical mission? Why is it that Cs and Is feel fine leaving and aren’t warned that the “Canadian Project” will fail if they do? Because they’re countries, that’s why. Not pet projects of 19th century nationalist clubs in Eastern Europe.

  34. I think there’s a real threat to losing Jewish majority status in Israel that doesn’t exist (as much?) in Canada, which is the fear of losing rights in the democratic process. Although Democracy is supposed to be set up to preserve the rights of minorities, that is somewhat dependent on a majority with at least a nominal interest in such a relationship. (Yes, yes, I know that the Israeli majority is doing a piss poor job at protecting the rights of their own minorities, but doesn’t that just prove the point?)

  35. In the hypothetical case that such countries weren’t afraid of their own citizens losing majority status in their own country, it’s because those countries aren’t surrounded by dozens of hostile nations with hundreds of millions of residents committed to destroying them.
    The truth is that given the demographic realities of Europe, many countries are afraid of losing their national majorities and their culture. A number of western European countries are on the road to Muslim majority status over the next several decades. That will mean the functional end of western European culture and its replacement by an Arab/Muslim culture that will inherit the machinery of state.
    “Because they’re countries, that’s why. Not pet projects of 19th century nationalist clubs in Eastern Europe.” That’s absurd. Zionism, in terms of Jewish possession of the land of Israel, is rooted in the Torah itself. It began a loooooong time before the 19th century rolled around (and a long time before Jews ever reached Europe).

  36. Zionism, in terms of Jewish possession of the land of Israel, is rooted in the Torah itself. It began a loooooong time before the 19th century rolled around (and a long time before Jews ever reached Europe).
    Why should Eric even need to write this? Is it not self-evident?

  37. Is Zionism really “Jewish posession of the land”? Is that what it means? And if so, why do we need the trappings of a nation-state and an army to go with it?
    The Torah (more precisely, Deuteronomy) had a vision which had been defunct for a very long time, and nobody wanted to revive that at all. Zionism is a 19th century project aimed at raising Jewish national consciousness (another term with a murky existence) and creating a nation state of Jews (not necessarily in Palestine). The Torah has nothing to do with the founding of a state which is perpetually engaged in shficut damim, chillul shabbos, gezel and arayot.

  38. Eric: countries whose citizens are minorities in said countries are dictatorships of minorities (who can vote) over unenfranchised majorities.
    Citizens of, say, Italy – even if most will be muslim – will never be a minority in their own state (Unlike the situation in the west bank, again, for example).

  39. The Torah (more precisely, Deuteronomy) had a vision which had been defunct for a very long time, and nobody wanted to revive that at all. Zionism is a 19th century project aimed at raising Jewish national consciousness (another term with a murky existence) and creating a nation state of Jews (not necessarily in Palestine). The Torah has nothing to do with the founding of a state which is perpetually engaged in shficut damim, chillul shabbos, gezel and arayot.
    Amit, you’re obviously a very knowledgeable person (far more knowledgeable that I’ll ever be), but some of us just have different understandings of what Zionism is, or what it means to be a Jew.

  40. Jonathan, there is an organization of Zionists. It’s called the WZO. It is governed by the Zionist congress (which convenes in Jerusalem once every four years). It is a movement. An institution.
    So there are no two ways about it: the history of the institution is the history of the concept. You feel strongly about Palestine/Israel? That’s nice, but it doesn’t make you a “Zionist”. You become a Zionist by paying dues to the WZO (or one of its member organizations).

  41. >>”Is Zionism really “Jewish posession of the land”? Is that what it means? And if so, why do we need the trappings of a nation-state and an army to go with it?”
    Um, Amit — could you please explain to us how a nation is supposed to posses a piece of land without having those inconvenient “trappings of a nation-state and an army”?
    I’m sure Israelis would be happy to dispense with those terribly distasteful things like passports, telephone companies, the Supreme Court and all those expensive government ministries, and go happily live out their days on quiet, unfenced anarcho-syndicalist communes instead. But alas their neighbors have other plans….
    >>”The Torah (more precisely, Deuteronomy) had a vision which had been defunct for a very long time, and nobody wanted to revive that at all.”
    Nonsense. The vision of Jewish possession of Israel was only “defunct” for those Jews who had abandoned Judaism completely and assimilated into European culture. Jews hoped and cried and worked for the return to Israel for millenia. Zionism’s main innovation was taking large-scale action to reach that goal, and not assuming that the messiah had to accomplish it first.
    >>”The Torah has nothing to do with the founding of a state which is perpetually engaged in shficut damim, chillul shabbos, gezel and arayot.”
    I don’t even get this. The Torah is quite clear about the role of warfare in maintaining possession of the land. As for “arayot”… You want the Israeli government to criminalize and prosecute homosexual activity?
    Go read over the Torah text. Again and again the mitzvot are given in the context of an overarching objective: “So that you may inherit the land.” Possession of the land of Israel by the people of Israel is a fundamental goal of the Torah. Why that is so is another question.
    You still haven’t explained why Jews or Israelis should dispense with the nation-state “trappings” that hundreds of other major ethnic/national/religious groups take for granted since time immemorial.
    >>”Why should Eric even need to write this? Is it not self-evident?”
    :-/ Apparently not for some.

  42. There are many national groups which had no nation state for many thousands of years. Many more used to have a nation state and do not any more. It used to be a peaceful arrangement; now – not so much. But do not confuse the Deuteronomist’s ideas with those of the “short 20th century”. Inheriting the land is done through working it, not ruling it. This is a basic rabbinic principle of ownership.
    Your land-centric view of the Torah is nice, and has some roots in tradition. But only some, since most Jews did not agree and chose not to come to Palestine, which was open to them until 1924 or so. There were better prospects elsewhere. There is no mitzva to live in Eretz Israel (Ramban is the exception), and even if there was, it would exclude most of the coast and south. So again – if people living in Ramat Hasharon are not in Eretz Israel, your “Zionism is eternal” argument is useless.
    Jews did not hope for millennia for a worldly state and its problems. They hoped for the Messiah. He has not yet come. Do not trample on their dreams and ours by saying the 40 years of occupation are the world to come, and Bibi Netanyahu our Messiah.

  43. >>Jews did not hope for millennia for a worldly state and its problems. They hoped for the Messiah. He has not yet come. Do not trample on their dreams and ours by saying the 40 years of occupation are the world to come, and Bibi Netanyahu our Messiah.
    I do not know what you’re talking about. The Torah, the Mishna, the Talmud, the works of halacha are all about the practical problems about living in a practical country on the solid earth.
    This has nothing to do with politicians or messianism. Only messianists demand their messiah right now, instant-on, all or nothing. The Talmud meanwhile discusses the laws of farming in Israel, the court system in Israel and water management in Israel. The real world. Our world.
    Labeling possession of Israel “Deuteronomist” is absurd — the centrality of the land of Israel starts in Genesis and just keeps going. The Torah text is clear on this issue: Jewish possession of Israel is an imperative whether before or after the arrival of the messiah. Why that’s so is, like I said above, a different question. But it is so.
    That it took the Jewish people, as a people, almost 2,000 years to get back to their homeland doesn’t change Judaism’s view on the subject.

  44. It’s interesting. Amit is obviously very intelligent and knowledgeable. No one is suggesting that the State of Israel today is the future Kingdom of Israel, complete with Mashiach, etc. That is not what Israel is, and we continue to pray for the coming of Mashiach, speedily in our days. Yet, Israel exists, imperfect as a nation established by people always will be.
    Amit’s argument sounds awfully similar to that of the spies, who did not want to deal with the realities of building and governing a nation, and instead preferred to camp out in the desert, eating manna and studying Torah. Sure, he says, in theory the Jews should have a nation, but look how messy it is in practice – other people are claiming the same land and trying to kill us, there is a boycott movement, and I don’t really like farming anyway.
    Amit, can you say that if Mashiach came today, your argument would be any different? “Listen, Mashi’, rebuilding the Temple is good and all, but I don’t really wanna deal with getting my hands dirty with all the whole Sanhedrin business, destroying Amalek, sacrifices – imagine the backlog! Why don’t you go take a hike for another lifetime.”

  45. Sure, he says, in theory the Jews should have a nation, but look how messy it is in practice – other people are claiming the same land and trying to kill us, there is a boycott movement, and I don’t really like farming anyway.
    I don’t think he’s saying that at all. I think he’s saying the Jews shouldn’t have a nation, and that there is no ethnic/national element to Judaism. (Although I never really understand his–and others here–approach to Israel.)

  46. I think the Jews are not a nation. I think we’re better off not being a nation. I also think that now that ISrael exists, its not a bad thing, and definitely not inherently unjust – but also not inherently just. Like all things, the state should be judged on its merits.

  47. Amit, your definition of a nation state is accurate. Your description of zionism and its state is accurate as well. We are very much in agreement, but do you think that a palestinian state would be an improvement to a zionist one?

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.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

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