[net.followup] Judaism & Zionism - previous correspondence with dciem!mmt

dave (05/06/83)

To put my reply to Martin Taylor (dciem!mmt) in context, here is our
previous correspondence:

==============================================================================
   From dciem!mmt Fri Apr 22 09:39:24 1983
   To: utcsrgv!dave
   Subject: Jewish=Zionist?

   I don't see why Jewish = Zionist. If it were so, anti-Zionists like me
   would be anti-Jewish, whiich I am not. I don't think ANY state based on
   religion should exist, because such states almost always lead to
   intolerance (Papal Spain, present-day Iran, for example; not to
   mention what the Moral Majority would like to do to N. America).
   Let people be who they be, worship how they want. That's my motto.
   I think the manner in which Israel was born was most unfortunate,
   and see no historical claim whatever for Jewish ownership of the
   area now called Palestine. Jews and Arabs had for many centuries got
   along very well, much better than Jews and Christians, until Zionism
   got mixed up with Jewishness. I have great sympathy with the Jewish
   experience in the Holocaust, and with the Goanese experiences in Uganda,
   and the Cambodians under Pol Pot etc.etc. But I would not have handed
   Israel over to the Begin terrorists either. Rather, I would have attempted
   (probably unsuccessfully) to support moderate Jews in the attempt to
   restore harmony with the Arabs in the Middle East, so that Jews who
   felt personally threatened in what was left of Europe could have a
   congenial place to go.
   Do you really think Zionism will EVER lead to a safe home for Jews?

   Martin

=============================================================================

   From dave Fri Apr 22 10:20:36 1983
   To: dciem!mmt
   Subject: Zionism

   The historical claim of the Jews to Israel is well-documented and goes
   back a long way. Furthermore, much of Israel was only reclaimed from
   the desert because Jews settled there. Zionism never aimed at throwing
   the Arabs out of Palestine. If you recall the UN resolution of 1947 which
   authorized the creation of Israel, it also authorized the creation of
   an Arab state. It was the Arabs who rejected that concept. Where were
   the cries for a Palestinian state on the West Bank from 1948-1967?

   Your sympathy for Jews who are murdered is not enough, in my book.
   Jews have been persecuted throughout the world for centuries.
   Having nowhere to go in 1939 was one of the causes of the magnitude
   of the Holocaust. Like most Jews, I would much rather be disliked and
   alive than dead with your sympathy.

   Saying that states based on religion lead to intolerance and are
   therefore wrong is a cop-out. Don't look at Papal Spain or present-day
   Iran. They are different countries and different religions. Look at
   Israel. Do you have any idea of what rights are given to Arabs in
   Israel? And Christians? There is complete freedom of religion. When
   I was there in 1974, our group went to visit Maarot Hamachpeleh, where
   Abraham and other [pm]atriarchs are buried. We had to wait for a while
   because the Arab hours weren't over yet, and Arabs were visiting the
   tomb. (Abraham was a father of the Arabs as well, of course.) Tell
   me that Jewish holy sites ever got such treatment in Arab countries.
   (For that matter, tell me the Arab countries aren't "based on religion".)
   Do you know what happened to Jewish sacred sites in the part of
   Jerusalem which was under Jordanian control between 1948 and 1967?

   Your motto may well be "let people be who they be, worship what they want".
   If that's really the case, you'll be happy to see one small country where
   Jews can be, and worship. Letting them "be" in other countries, with the
   exception of those democracies where human rights are carefully protected,
   just isn't good enough.

   And that's why Judaism and Zionism go together.

   Dave

   From dciem!mmt Fri Apr 22 11:56:17 1983
   To: utcsrgv!dave
   Subject: Zionism

   Thanks for getting back so quickly. I think (hope) I understand your
   feelings, but I can't ever be a Jew, so I can't really know. The
   dilemma is a real one, with no true solution that I can see. Argument
   from emotion leads to different results from arguments based on logic,
   and both are valid.
   Consider:
   (i) Almost any piece of terrain in the world has been used ("owned?)
   by a wide variety of peoples over the last 2000 years. Each group that
   lived there for some time has a legitimate claim to regard that place
   as a homeland. So regardless of which version of Judaic history is
   correct, the one time political suzerainty of the Jews over the territory
   of Israel under the Roman Empire is irrelevant to their present claim.
   The best claim Israel has is that it NOW exists (like Yugoslavia).
   (ii) I wonder whether the Arabs in Israel feel they have an equal share
   in the government, or the Christians, for that matter. I have never
   been there, so I hesitate to comment on what life is like for different
   groups, but I have heard that there exist Sabbath laws rather like our
   Lord's Day Act, which must be offensive to you. I have also heard of
   political parties claiming that everybody should live by various versions
   of more or less strict Jewish law.
   (iii) I think it an exaggeration to say that Jews have everywhere been
   persecuted throughout the centuries. It has generally been true in
   Christian countries (under the influence of the gentle Christ), but
   I thought that Arab countries before 1900 were something of a haven
   for Jews, who frequently rose to eminent positions in business and
   government. This is one reason why the present enmity between Jews
   and Arabs seems so sad. I could understand a deep enmity of Jews for
   Christians, given the history. Only since 1945 has there been any
   attempt that I can see for Christian countries to "apologise" to Jews
   for Hitler. Now I see on the netnews that some kids are growing up
   not even believing that the Holocaust happened, and I worry that
   we may live to see anti-semitism become "respectable" again.
   (iv) If anti-semitism does become respectable, it has to be fought
   with all weapons, but I don't think an apparently imperialistic
   (colonialistic?) Israel dominated by a philosophy of lebensraum
   (I deliberately use Hitler's word) will help in the fight. Neither
   do I think Jews in or out of Israel should be meek and mild. The
   world is not a nice place, and everyone has to stand up for their
   rights.
   (v) There tends to be a confusion between supporting the existence
   of Israel and its right to exist, on the one hand, and "Israel cna
   do no wrong" on the other. The latter is what is often labelled Zionism,
   and is what I oppose. I would probably have opposed the formation
   of Israel originally, but it is hard to blame the Western leaders of
   the day with the horrors of Germany fresh in mind. But as I said
   above, the best claim Israel has to exist is that it is there and
   viable if no-one interferes.
   (vi) Yes, Israel has made the desert bloom in a way that the Arabs
   never did. But that is irrelevant to the question.

   I hope you appreciate that I don't like or dislike Jews, Christians,
   Moslems, or anybody labelled by a group name. I deal with people rather
   than with groups. I object when one "group" deals with the people of
   another "group" as if the group label defined the individuals.

   Martin

==============================================================================

   From dave Thu May  5 17:19:37 1983
   To: dciem!mmt
   Subject: Zionism, round three

   I agree that one of Israel's best claims to its land is that it is
   there now. That goes for just about every other country in the world
   too. But there is indeed an historical claim, which goes back much further
   than the Roman Empire. The other powers which occupied the land over time
   are not around any more.

   Perhaps Moslems and Christians don't feel they have an equal share in
   government. But they have rights as citizens. They elect members to
   the Parliament. They sit in the Parliament. They are also a minority
   in the country. In how many Arab countries do Jews (or Christians, for
   that matter) have equal civil rights?

   The Sabbath laws reflect the fact that, yes indeed, Israel is a state
   based on a religion. Parts of the country (e.g., Jerusalem) contain
   large numbers of observant Jews, and in deference to them there are
   certain restrictions. In those parts of the country where there are
   fewer observant Jews (e.g., Haifa), there are fewer restrictions.

   Jews and Arabs may have "gotten along" in Arab countries, but it
   was always on the basis of the Jews being second-class citizens.
   Aren't we allowed ONE country where we can come first? Most Arab
   countries are based on religion as much as Israel is.

   As you probably expected, I object to your use of the word "Lebensraum"
   to describe Israel's policies. Let me remind you of a few points:
   	(1) The Begin government HANDED BACK to Egypt, in exchange
   	    for a somewhat ephemeral peace treaty, a large expanse
   	    of land, complete with oilfields and air bases. This is
   	    hardly expansionist.
   	(2) Israel's policy in Lebanon is clear. It needs some guarantees
   	    of protection for its own citizens. After years of being
   	    shelled across the border, enough is enough. If the Lebanese
   	    can't stop it, Israel has to. Israel has never had any intention
   	    of "taking over" Lebanon.
   	(3) Kindly recall how Israel came to be in control of the West Bank.
   	    In 1967, three days into the Six-Day War, Jordan decided to
   	    believe all the glowing reports coming from Egypt about how
   	    Israel was being wiped out. Deciding to grab some more land
   	    for itself, Jordan attacked Israel. In response, the Israelis
   	    repelled the Jordanians and took over the entire West Bank, an
   	    area which Jordan had no claim to in the first place. I hardly
   	    call that Lebensraum.
   The situation now is different from what it was in 1966. Why should the 1948
   borders mean anything? They happened to be armistice lines which marked
   where the various parties were when the firing stopped. They have no magical
   value. Just as Israel was entitled to keep the land it "acquired" in 1948,
   it is entitled to the land it "acquired" in 1967.

   The Palestinians who do not like living in the West Bank under Israeli
   control are welcome to move to Palestine - that is, that country which
   makes up 77% of the original British territory of Palestine and a majority
   of whose residents are Palestinian Arabs -- Jordan. Many hundreds of
   thousands of Jews moved from Arab countries to Israel after 1948.

   In response to the question in your first letter, as to whether Israel
   will ever lead to a safe home for Jews, the answer is an unequivocal YES.
   It already does! Where do you think Jews go, from all over the world?
   Jews who got out of Iran, out of Russia, out of Syria, and many other
   places in recent years, have all found a home in Israel. If there were
   no Israel, we might well be back to 1939.

   Dave Sherman