Comments on: Israeli Democracy (1)

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:15:19 +0000

Respectfully, I think your analogy to British society is misleading. Anyone can become British – Indians, Blacks, other Asians.

Judaism is not welcoming in any sense. You cannot really convert to Judaism. I mean, some people do it. Its rare, its hard, it requires overcoming many obstacles. It’s not like a Jew in England who wants to celebrate a Christian tradition–converting to Christianity is welcomed, encouraged.

In this way Judaism is like a race, like being white or black. Its something your born with. So it really is like saying, “this is a white state” or more appropriately, like the Liberia of the 19th century, this is a black state — and others are not welcome, even if they attempt cultural assimilation.

By: Peter D

Peter D — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:17:47 +0000

Duplicity of this guy Gordis is mind-boggling. I am sure, if asked why
is it OK to have an ethnic state like Israel he’d repeat the usual,
quite stupid argument that it is the same as Germany being the state of
the Germans and France being the state of the French. However, if
anybody suggested to him that in this case a Jew cannot become a head of
state in Germany or France, he’d throw a fit. But then, of course, it
is not OK to have an Arab PM of Israel. Intellectual consistency is not
the forte of these guys, unlike petty racism…

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:51:09 +0000

Hi Fiddler, thanks for your comment. In some ways it’s on the outer fringes, in other ways not. One could argue, for example, that notions of a Hebrew Republic are far truer to the core Zionist texts than the more chauvinistic versions. I’d also say that any ideology worth its salt should be capable of expanding and changing. This was what so important about Obama’s message during the US campaign – the genius of America is that it can change etc. Why can’t Israel and Zionism be like that?

By: fiddler

fiddler — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:19:38 +0000

(came over here from SoJo)
In your eloquent criticism of Gordis, aren’t you trying to redefine Zionism according to what you’d like it to be, that is, to resurrect the ideas of Ha’am and Magnes? I’d suggest that much, if not most anti-Zionism is based on the view that, while Jews, like everyone, have a right to religious and cultural self-determination, that doesn’t mean this can justly be accomplished by political self-rule at the expense of another people. Obviously though, this is how it turned out, and this is what Zionism has de facto been about for the last 60+ years.
An inclusive “Hebrew Republic”, as envisioned by Bernard Avishai and yourself does seem to me to be on the outer fringes of those who call themselves “Zionists”, especially among those who do so most loudly.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:26:43 +0000

Hi Marc – a little bit of all three, although it is a topic I should deal with…someday soon perhaps…
A

By: Marc Grajower

Marc Grajower — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:06:40 +0000

Alex,

Just wondering why there is not mention of the diaspora. Is that because there was not enough space to develop this aspect here, because it was not relevant here, or does it (the diaspora) not play a significant role in your brand of Zionism, back there, left of the spectrum?

Kind regards,

Marc