the USA, Israel, and national interest

though the discussion about palestinians wasn't particularly balanced, and they weren't receptive to my sister bringing up alternative viewpoints. it sounded a lot like the nation article, basically.

different trips are sponsored by different organizations w/ different agendas. going on, say, a hillel or aish hatorah trip means getting a very religious experience of israel. going w/ a different sponsor often means something else (generally depending on the goals of the organization). some of them focus heavily on hooking up (and there was def even hooking up on my trip which was a more 'adult' version of the generally early twenties trips) and some more on politics or culture. it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about the entire organization as one monolithic thing. (also look at What We Brought Back -- nextbook collection of non-traditional responses to birthright; disclosure i contributed a piece to the anthology.)

but we're probably not going to agree about 'creepiness' for a different reason which is that I'm very sympathetic to anti-intermarriage projects. probably a whole can of worms there tho.

...

yeah i had a feeling you and iatee went on a different trip, my siblings were on the 'horny drunk americans in their early twenties' trips

http://markoppenheimer.com/front-page/alison-benedikt-here-i-come.html

And here we get to a more homely point: it sounds as if Benedikt's parents screwed up. From what I can tell, they gave her a Zionist education, but not a very good Jewish one. Obviously her essay is not comprehensive, but it is long enough that we'd expect some mention of the joys of Jewish learning or ritual observance, if there were any to be found. But in that department we basically get only that her bat mitzvah party had a Saturday Night Live–themed party.

And if that's Judaism, then who would want it? And if we don't want Judaism, why even bother arguin about Zionism?

Mark Oppenheimer pretty OTM throughout his post.

Second—and to many Jews this is the less obvious point, alas—do not confuse Zionism with Judaism.

can never be said enough, really

It's definitely a problem, esp since Israel is very important theologically (in the seder itself we say, "next year in jerusalem" as the very last words!) and obv got entangled with Zionism in 19th century. In a world where Israel is a reality, what are the ways that you can yearn for it, dream of it, speak of it, etc, without talking about the actual entity that currently exists? One way is to be Neturei Karta, where you are antagonistic towards the State bc you believe you have to wait for the Messianic era to colonize Israel (which was actually a very popular charedi belief up until 1947). You can be critical of Israeli governments tho, but to the extent to which Zionism = the belief that the Jewish people should have a self-determining State in the biblical area of Israel, if you want to be true to Judaism, you need to be a Zionist. (If you believe Zionism also implies other things obv those things aren't necessarily as important...) Of course, the Rambam leaves it out of his 13 principles of faith so you can technically not even believe in Israel as a Jewish land and still not be heretical. Presumably that's what the Neturei Karta rely upon.

And of course I don't want to leave out options for Judaism that aren't theological, and I personally champion a lot of non-sectarian Jewish culture, but the theological + cultural stuff is pretty closely entwined to the point where even a completely "secular" Jew like Philip Roth has to write an entire novel to try and deal w/ his feelings about Israel (at least one novel, really), so it's not like ppl haven't been working through this question already (ways of being a Jew re: Israel).

to the extent to which Zionism = the belief that the Jewish people should have a self-determining State in the biblical area of Israel, if you want to be true to Judaism, you need to be a Zionist.

I.... guess. it's true there is an awful lot in the Torah about God giving that particular tract of land to the Jews, and to deny that (or not take it literally) has some, er, far-reaching implications. maybe I just don't believe in the validity of this particular Israeli state.

Well let's face it though -- I don't believe in a messiah or a literal God. I don't really take any of Jewish theology literally. So I don't really feel a need to find theological grounds for my ambivalence about/growing antipathy toward zionism. I see myself very much in a certain tradition of secular Judaism, really. One branch of my family has been that way for at least five generations (maybe more but I don't know the history). Perhaps this means that what I mean by "being Jewish" is just irreconcilable with what a hassid or a modern orthodox person means by "being Jewish," but I feel more than a little tired of self-appointed authorities on Jewishness pontificating about what is or isn't a proper expression of Jewish identity. Hassidism is a relatively modern invention too. And honestly I've found that judgmental zionistic types are just as likely to be of the SNL-themed bar mitzvah ilk as of the "joy of Jewish observance" ilk.

I mean you know, I WILL delete shit from the haggadah if I don't like it. You can ask me who I think I am, but that's just how I roll, rabbi.

My point wasn't so much that you need to find theological grounds for a break from Israel, but that you do need to mediate that break in tradition somehow. Especially since Zionism emerged directly from the "tradition of secular Judaism" that you're finding yourself in (part. Yiddish + Hebrew language movements). Like I said above, Chassidim weren't onboard the Zionism train until the foundation of the State. It's not irreconcilable, tho I find that many anti-Zionist (or anti-Israel) Jews are really looking to jettison more of the tradition than just Israel. Afaik there isn't a serious secular Jewish group that is also anti-Israel, tho admittedly I may be discounting groups that I consider fringe (unfairly maybe). Like I don't know how quick Klezcamp ppl are to make aliyah, but even they pay some lip service to the idea (even if it's in the form of showing Yiddish films about Israeli socialism kibbutzim).

I just came across this in Martin Buber:

Rabbi Mikhal of Zlotchov told:
"Once when we were on a journey with our teacher, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov, the Light of the Seven Days, he went into the woods to say the Afternoon Prayer. Suddenly we saw him strike his head against a tree and cry aloud. Later we asked him about it. He said: 'While I plunged into the holy spirit I saw that in the generations which precede the coming of the Messiah, the rabbis of the hasidim will multiply like locusts, and it will be they who delay redemption, for they will bring about the separation of hearts and groundless hatred."

a gift to this thread from a classroom in the shul where my sister-in-law just held her wedding:

http://i53.tinypic.com/2n8x4ap.jpg

wicked

not really about israel anymore, but a follow-up

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/john-cook-dude-trying-to-out-cia-agent.html

lol john cook

boy that's a really horrible blog

Don't know if this is the right Israel thread, but since it's on new answers:

http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-house-passes-ban-settlement-boycotts-194932483.html

wow

bipartisanship!

The bill introduced Monday in the U.S. House of Representatives by four lawmakers -- Reps. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), Steve Rothman (D-N.J.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Robert Brady (D-Pa.) -- would target dozens of nations that receive assistance ranging from the hundreds of thousands of dollars to billions.

"We won't allow other countries to vote against our best friend with one hand in the U.N. and come to Congress to seek taxpayer dollars with the other hand," said Israel.

The bill would include a standard presidential national security waiver....

On Tuesday, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, held a news conference with eight other Republicans to tout her U.N. reform bill, which includes provisions that would cut funding to any U.N. body that enhances the Palestinian status. She called on President Obama to back the initiative.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/14/3089372/dem-bill-would-pull-defense-aid-from-nations-voting-for-statehood

The UN statehood vote is purely symbolic anyway, so I'm not sure why people are getting so worked up about it.

also, it's always a good day in NYC when Dov Hikind is pissed:

http://gothamist.com/2011/09/15/the_dangerous_pro-palestine_subway.php

vote against our best friend

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01949/tears_1949528c.jpg

B...b...but the 'special relationship'! We thought we had something real. :(

we never liked u guys afaicr

http://prancingpawsdoggiedaycare.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Sad-Bulldog2-150x150.jpg

Right-wing blogger says Obama has thrown Israel under the bus

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-middle-east-dead-end/2011/03/29/gIQA6gEgkK_blog.html?hpid=z3

that's EXACTLY why we're vetoing Palestinian statehood in the UN

curmudgeon saying that is jennifer rubin's job

i mean totally literally that is what she is paid to do

Oh nice

Senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said Wednesday that the Palestinians' statehood bid at the United Nations is the only alternative to violence, stressing that the UN move will give the Palestinians the chance to promote their rights.

"The UN is the only alternative to violence," Shaath said during a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly."It will be very costly to us and the Israelis. Our new heroes are Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/senior-palestinian-official-un-bid-is-only-alternative-to-violence-1.385885

uh, that first phrase doesn't really jibe with the second...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/16/israel-s-secret-iran-attack-plan-electronic-warfare.html

The important question isn't whether the Israelis can effectively strike Iran's nuclear facilities with sufficient force to cripple or delay their weapons-making capability; they can. What's more important is what Iran might do in response. When they struck Iraq and Syria, nothing much happened in response. Iran seems to me like a different kettle of fish.

Iran are far more beleaguered and whatever legitimacy this regime has stems, in part, from the legacy of the Iran/Iraq war.

The real question for me is whether they would ever use a bomb agressively or if they want one to dissuade Sunnis/Israelis/USA from attacking.

I think that Iranian leadership has had many opportunities where instead of using rhetoric of self-defense and protection, they have chosen rhetoric of violence and aggression. The latter isn't necessary to demonstrate strength, but they have still decided to go with it. You can always wonder whether they're really really serious, but in the end I think you have to err on the side that ppl are being sincere.

Being attacked by an enemy from without has a way of shoring up a regime's legitimacy rather quickly. The need to defend one's country usually overrides lesser concerns of personal freedom or economic opportunity.

The unconcern of the Iranian clerics for the lives of Iranian soldiers during the war with Iraq was rather breathtaking. Now they once more have a lot of disgruntled and expendable young men on thier hands. A war might seem like just the thing to them. Or not. I don't pretend to know.

A rational Iranian regime would use their nuclear capacity as a shield and as a way to dominate their near neighbors. One would hope that rationality is at work here.

They use that rhetoric against the US, too but it makes me wonder whether they're really telling Russia, Turkey, Israel, Saudi, US, "We Kerrazeee (don't even try it)", or whether they are, in fact, paranoid and delusional.

Well, that's always the bet of history -- do you bet that things will probably be the way they always are, ie: that ppl tend to act rationally, that they tend not to be paranoid and delusional, that most people don't want to unleash a nuclear holocaust, etc, or do you bet that this is the rare circumstance where the guy in charge is actually legit dangerous. Generally it's the former, but once in awhile it's the latter. Unfortunately, the consequence of it being the latter is so severe that you can't discount the possibility.

I'm just not sure why attacking them makes any sense, though. I'm loath to trade in stereotypes but Shi'ia is kind of notorious for its persecution complex, add that to Persian ire over being a once great power who's been kicked around for awhile now and I wonder whether the better option might be a public declaration from the US that any aggressive nuclear moves on their part will be answered in spades.

How many strikes will be needed in the end? Can't they just dig deeper and deeper?

xp
There are and have been enough crazy people in positions of national power in the past that you can never discount it entirely. Also, the dynamics of power can lead to very distorted calculations, even when leaders attempt to be cold and calculating.

I can see from an Israeli perspective that having 6 million ppl in a relatively small area doesn't really give them any wiggle room. Otoh an endless campaign against Iranian WMD capability doesn't have much in the way of a happy endgame, either.

xp that's my point. it happens rarely, but it happens.

i'd like to know how anyone can answer iranian nuclear ambitions with, "they'll never attack anyone, they're totally peaceful, it's just to defend themselves." with certainty. how can you possibly know that for sure? it's not even like they've said they're peaceful and they just want it for a deterrent and other ppl are claiming that they're lying and being disingenuous. they have explicitly said that they want to wipe Israel out and then i hear ppl saying either, "no, that's just for show," or the totally asinine, "no, in persian that means something different than what it sounds like. it's symbolic."

It's definitely part of the rhetoric they use with their base. Whining about Israel and weeping over the fate of the Palestians is an old game in the Muslim world but it's also partially a side-show to distract ppl from the stuff the regime can't do like lift sanctions or subsidize oil the way they used to and you can talk all you want about wiping Israel off the map but if they try it, Tehran and more will be taken out, too.

Without question, but the line between rhetorically pacifying your base and militarily pacifying your base is a thin one. In numerous countries military rhetoric has frequently erupted into actual military action.

Like isn't that always the next step after you've lost your support? Start a war.

I guess what I'm saying is basically Kennan's long telegram; containment over actual confrontation. I'm not sure what kind of threat Iran represents otherwise; Druze and money to Hamas? What are the ramifications of a successful strike? What's Khamenei's next move? What do the Council of Guardians or Ahmedinejhad do following an attack?

If you think they're rational enough actors not to commit catastrophic military action with nuclear weapons, then presumably they're also rational enough not to commit catastrophic military action if their nuclear sites are bombed. If you believe that bombing their nuclear sites would be enough to get them to launch an attack against Israel, then why is not bombing them enough to keep them from launching an attack against Israel once they have nuclear weapons?

Like isn't that always the next step after you've lost your support? Start a war.

Why would Israel want to give them a casus belli? Or do we essentially think they are de facto already at war like Syria is and this is basically just a way to make them less dangerous.

It will bolster the regime imho and likely splinter what's left of the Green movement.

I guess you could believe that they're just crazy enough to start a conventional war with Israel once provoked, but not crazy enough to start a nuclear war (bc of mutually assured destruction)...