It's everyone's favorite day of the week, "Ask A (Anti-Zionist) Jew" Wednesday! Ask whatever you want to know, within the sub rules, notably that this is not a debate sub and do not import drama from other subreddits. That aside, have fun! We love to dialogue with our non-Jewish siblings.
Palestinian American here. I was wondering about the Jewish perspective on calling a Zionist a Nazi. The Zionists around me are mostly Christian, but I have also used this insult with Jewish Zionists, and something made me pause. I realized that (even though I give no shit what a Zionist feels), a nonZionist Jewish person might be party to that conversation (either online or by onlookers), and it may cause harm.
I only want to hurt the feelings of a Zionist, not the innocent people around me.
So, what is your opinion on the use of Nazi to describe Zionists?
(Another note - this is not how I start conversations. It is always in response to their insults. I usually get terrorist or other Islamophobic bullshit.)
If they are being insulting or hateful and bigoted, and you have no intention to have a relationship with them, sure I would have no issue if you called them a Nazi. I use the term “yudonatzim” (Jewish Nazis) all the time when I get upset with hateful Zionists. I don’t give a damn about the feelings of racists and fascists.
But I would never use that term to describe Zionists outside of that situation. Lots of us here were once Zionists. We weren’t Nazis, the values we hold now are the same values we held as Zionists. But we simply lacked the education and knowledge to understand that Zionism is not aligned with our values
That is a very good distinction. I use it as a reaction, not an introduction. I'm not out here finding random people and screaming at them. I actually like people. But when I get called names or harassed for existing, I find it hard to mind my words. I usually word vomit until they leave me alone or throw the first punch.
To add on top of the other excellent answers, I would add that I don't think it's even accurate. Zionism is absolutely a fascist ideology, but not all fascist ideologies are Nazism (Mussolini's Italy, Falangism, the various modern variants).
As an analytical matter, I think categorizing Zionism as a fascist ideology is correct but it doesn't go far enough in the same way that identifying tigers and house cats as both mammals doesn't go far enough.
Specifically, an important feature of fascist ideologies is corporatism, the conceit that society would be a harmonious unit if not for elements that actively work to undermine unity -- since I'm talking to an avowed Communist, I can put it in these terms: corporatism's purpose is to mystify class relations and deny the class contradiction that lies at the heart of the bourgeois system of production.
However, under Italian fascism the disunifying elements are socialists and union organizers, people who could be in principle reformed to become good little fascists. Nazism's roots in theosophical race-mysticism and eugenics is what makes it decide that the disunification of society is due to two causes: the first is an eternal war against the Aryan race by the Jews, and the second is a system of racial contradictions that lie at the heart of "mongrelized" society.
Zionism lies between the two: if Zionism were only fascist, then the Palestinians could become as 100% Israeli as David Ben-Gurion. If Zionism were Nazism, then it would be necessary to carry on a global final solution to the Palestinian Question. But it's clear enough that along the Fascist-Nazi spectrum, Zionism is much closer to the pole of Nazism, because the Palestinians inhabit the same structural position as Slavs did for the Nazis -- not at all surprising because Nazi Germany's purpose was to colonize Eastern Europe, and to colonize required to ethnically cleanse Eastern Europe of most of its indigenous inhabitants and reduce the rest to helotry and target practice for the army.
wondering about the Jewish perspective on calling a Zionist a Nazi.
I have no problem with this, but it's not something I would say as an argument.
When I think about the vile stuff that some pro-Israel politicians say or the crimes of the IDF and settlers? This is the word that comes to mind.
And making these kinds of comparisons is so ubiquitous in Western political culture and Israelis do it all the time too. Everyone is Hitler. Everyone is the next Nazis.
If I find myself saying it aloud, it's due to frustration/anger - not some serious analysis.
But then again, I don't need the crimes of the IDF et al. to rise to the level of the actual Nazis to consider them fascist goons.
I highly, supremely, unequivocally recommend that you never ever call a Jewish Zionist that word. No good will come from it. It is extremely offensive for reasons unrelated to Zionism and if anything, it has an emboldening and radicalizing effect.
From this non-Orthodox and also Historical Materialist (so, Marxian) Jew's perspective, it's...fraught.
Religiously, Zionists are apostates who have broken the Mosaic covenant and placed themselves outside Am Yisrael. They are like the avdei egel ha-zahav. The shoddy neo-pagan Zionist religion the Zionists try to pass off as Judaism is avodah zarah, it is idol worship which by religious law officially incurs the most severe of the four death penalties.
Historically, and this is the rational kernel of what you're getting at, Zionism is a blood-and-soil nationalist and colonialist ideology. This is where it overlaps with Nazism -- an entitlement to particular-but-not-currently-owned area of land (Eastern Europe and cis-Uralic Russia vs. Palestine) transmitted by blood-right, combined with a drive to cleanse the land of its inhabitants by any means necessary in order to protect and preserve the race (Aryans vs. Ashkenazic Jews).
Another parallel is the religion: Nazism's neo-Paganism and Zionism's Datiism play corresponding functional roles, and if we want to get really spicy about it the Ahnenerbe was the Third Reich's version of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, "Biblical Archaelogy" Israel's version of the hunt for the Historical Aryan Race.
Where they diverge is that the Nazis alleged a worldwide anti-Aryan Jewish conspiracy was keeping down Germany (when the truth of the matter is that Germany was late enough to the capitalist development game that it just barely managed to get on the avoid-getting-colonized train, and then lost the 1914-1918 inter-imperialist struggle), while the Zionists could point to the very real and ongoing phenomenon of anti-Semitism (the Dreyfus affair happened while the Zionist movement was figuring out whether it was going to ask for a colony in Argentina or Palestine but before its first conference at Basel).
Further, Liberal Zionists exist while Nazism is a wholesale rejection of the idea of law. I think we should not allow our emotions to so wrap up our analysis that we can no longer distinguish between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil. Further, these Liberal Zionists allege that the Zionist state is held to standards not incumbent on any other country and is singled-out by the international legal order, while if Zionists and Nazis were wholly interchangeable we would expect them to be claiming things like the Shoah was an international Palestinian conspiracy. I don't think all the yada-yada-yada about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem quite rises to that level.
So let's get back to the question you asked. I wouldn't frame it in terms of the trendy pop-psych activist culture notion of "causing harm" -- I wouldn't experience "harm" from being right next to you while you did that at a protest, but it would make me wonder what sort of person you were. I'd find it alienating. And I say that as someone who didn't lose family members in the Shoah, and whose ancestors (unlike most Askhenazic Jews) actually were colonized.
Now if you called Zionists a group of idolatrous, apostate, pagan dirt-worshipers, that I think I would be much more comfortable with. Shouting Nazi comparisons at Zionists feels to me probably better left to the Jews.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. Seems like it is something I'm just gonna take out of my lexicon. Just to clarify (still gonna drop the word) what is the opinion on using towards Christian Zionists?
Personally? Well, you'll need to read between the lines here but I am of the opinion there are two Abrahamic religions: Judaism, and Islam.
Zionist Christians want me and my family to move to Palestine so that we can die and go to Hell so their false "God" can finally find his bus fare and come back. I...do not like them.
if a christian zionist mentions the rapture or heavily implies that’s why they support israel i think it’s fair game. I think it’s less bad to say to a christian or non jewish zionist but i still don’t think it’s great and would probably recommend not doing it.
From a religious Jewish perspective, Zionism has caused more destruction to Jews than Naziism. While that is a nuanced claim from a religious perspective, the history as that the Zionists admired and promoted the Nazi genocide and evil racist ideology. They have admired the Nazis by copying their propaganda playbook to dehumanize anti-zionist jews and muslims. They have promoted Nazi genocide historically in direct collaboration with nazis to send more jews to the gas chambers as well as generally promoting antisemitism worldwide.
I fully support the juxtaposition of both these evil movements especially in the face of Jews who may not be aware of how much they overlap.
The flipside is that ir pushes against the hasbara lie that supporting Jews means supporting Israel. The zionist have long pushed this message in the most cynical way, promoting the nazi genocide and then offering full-hearted forgiveness to the Germans on behalf of all Jews for a small fee:
Zionism changed the perception the Jewish people had of themselves — from a religion to a nationality. State-ism changed the perception the Jewish people had of their interests and needs — from their own to those of the state of Israel... An example of this is how Ben-Gurion responded to critics of Israel’s reconciliatory attitude toward Germany after the holocaust, including taking “reparations” money from them on behalf of the six million. He said:
If the holocaust victims could have voiced an opinion about Israel-German relations, they would have said, “What is good for Israel is good for the entire Jewish people.”
State-ism elevated the state of Israel to representing the interests of all Jewish people. Its interests became the interests of all Jews. What was good for Israel was by definition good for the Jews, and what was bad for Israel was bad for the Jews. A friend of Israel is a friend of the Jews, and whoever doesn’t like Israel is an enemy of the Jews.
[Shapiro, Rabbi Yaakov. The Empty Wagon: Zionism's Journey from Identity Crisis to Identity Theft]
Zionists sicken me. Nazis sicken me. The mention of them causes me the same level of disgust and anguish. I will never save a Zionists feelings, regardless of their identity.
But Jewish people should not have to be hurt because of my anger. I don't want to use this insult if the general consensus is that it will hurt good people.
I am angry. I am not thinking rationally. I work across the street from a Zionist church, and have to keep my tongue every day. But the fucker in Walmart calling me a terrorist because of my kuffiyeh? I will verbally eviscerate them. However, I can stick to "Your grandmother weeps at the thought of your existence," or "Cunt", if Nazi is not a word that I should use.
maybe i'm not as emotionally charged as you, but i think your focus should be on what can you say to change minds not what can you say to verbally roast the zionists. i mean, screaming at a zionist that he's a nazi, probably isn't going to change his mind. however, religious jews in Jerusalem screaming at the zionists "Nazis!", might inspire a question mark in some viewers.
They will never change their minds for a Palestinian woman. I will work with people who approach me with curiosity, but they want to hurt me. They have said they want me hurt. It would be so nice to educate. But I refuse to take their abuse lying down.
I would never attempt to 'intellectualize' the soldier occupying your people for decades on end.
I have zero patience and zero concern for 'shooting and crying' or other sad sack hasbara.
From an activist perspective, I do think pro-Palestine organizing should try to cast a wide net - but people also want to join Palestine solidarity regardless of compromises made with liberal Zionists et al.
The coalition of other student groups is vast and historically, Palestine solidarity has always been a litmus test for the Left.
Quick intro: you can skip to the question part if it's TLDR.
So I think we all saw the Lucas Gage video where he uses a gladius to "make his ancestors proud" while tearing up the Israeli flag. He very quickly starts antisemitic tropes and blames everything on "The Jews" even mentions 9/11 🤦♂️ - - I'm atleast pleased to say that most of the comments under that video were calling it out.
Someone combined that video with one from Shahid Bolsen, he's an American Muslim revert who has interesting insights on politics and Islam.
Here's the question
On the topic of Antizionism being conflated with antisemitism.
Shahid speaks about the identity of Jewishness.
Classically, he says, in Islam and rabbinically, "a Jew" is one who follows and participates in Judaism. That the identity should stop there but it doesn't. He adds that the Historian Shlomo Sand says that non-religious Jews identify strongly as Jewish in one or more of 3 ways:
By "Jewish blood" (which is more or less an antisemitic concept according to Sand)
By the collective trauma of the Holocaust.
The State of Israel. Which presents them with a place to go to be safe.
Shahid adds that this means that the non-religious Jewish identity is a construct forced upon them by Antisemites.
A Jewish person who does not believe or follow Judaism is still Jewish because non-Jews who hate Jews insist that they are Jews and won't allow them to be anything else.
I started to understand Jewishness as an Ethno-religious identity but I'd like to know how accurate Shahid's conclusion is to understand the concept further.
I am aware of the origins of JudenHass and Antisemitism which caused a shift.
Hate towards the people of the Jewish faith became a racist association between a language and race which made hate against Jewish people unavoidable. Even if a Jewish person became Christian, they'd still be considered Jewish.
Any opinions, thoughts or insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks guys.
Obligatory caveat: I’m just one Jewish atheist among many and absolutely not an expert.
I can see his point. I agree in some ways and disagree in others. The main point of agreement is that whether I say I’m Jewish or not has absolutely no effect on the two groups of people who really care: other Jews, and antisemites. Both will make their own decision, and my opinion is largely irrelevant. However, I disagree with the idea that this means my identity is being forced on me. Just because others have their own opinions about me doesn’t mean my view should be disregarded. This is a bit of a clunky comparison, but to put it another way: white and black people in America will have their views on whether someone with one white parent and one black parent counts as white or black, and many won’t bother listening to that mixed-raced person’s own thoughts on the matter, but that doesn’t make that person’s identity meaningless. I’m not just a Jew because others call me one.
Now regarding the three points:
I don’t think the idea of having Jewish “blood” is antisemitic, although I would prefer the word “genes.” I’m a very white Ashkenazi Jew, but I am very clearly genetically linked to Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, as well as Arabs. We are a collection of related ethnicities descended from the tribes of Israel, and anthropological evidence suggests that our ethnicity predates the modern Jewish religion.
This feels like a bit of an oversimplification for two reasons. First, it’s worth noting that treating all Jews as Holocaust victims or their descendants isn’t accurate, and at worst it can be completely dismissive of non-European Jewish groups like the Mizrahi. As I said before, though, I’m an Ashkenazi Jew, and I don’t know a ton about non-European Jews’ views on this matter, so I’ll leave any further elaboration to people more qualified to speak on it. The other reason this feels overly simplistic is that Jewish collective trauma extends far beyond the Holocaust. There’s a joke that almost every Jewish holiday can be summed up with the phrase “They tried to kill us. They failed. Let’s eat!” Jews have often been persecuted minorities in their own homelands for thousands of years. This is not at all meant to diminish the impact that the Holocaust had on the Jewish psyche, but just to point out that it didn’t create an identity. My family fled Europe for America before Germany was formally unified as a country, but trust me, they were still fleeing. The Holocaust is seen by many Jews (or at least many Jews I’ve spoken to) as just another example of a trend that has happened for millennia, and that one day will happen again.
Do I even have to say it? While this is true for many, many Jews, it is absolutely not true for all of us.
I love how you broke everything down to its nuance and explained it. Thank you so much.
What you said about point 2 is very true. It really does erase many histories of persecution but also ignores non-European history. I think it was Israeli Historian Avi Shleim that said that there is a Jewish history that is often overshadowed by the "lachrymose" history of the European Jewish people. He was referring to Jewish people that lived in relative peace in the middle east. (not to say that the Jewish people of the middle east didn't face persecution and other kinds of oppression).
England didn't really start affording Jews more protection until the late 18th century-1830s. Jews were banned from the country for centuries and the population that had lived there at one point was genocided (they've recently found mass graves of the victims in Norwich). Even when Jews were allowed to live there again they were considered foreigns regardless of if they had just arrived or their family had arrived generations before.
Horrific... I remember reading about the protections afforded to Jewish people by the British police and press in the past, such as protection from printing antisemitic articles and such.
I read Churchill's and Balfour's letters that called Jewish people a threat to western civilization. I don't know why I thought this wasn't connected to societal dynamics of the time.. And if it was this bad during the early 1900s then I imagine it was much worse before.
Thank you so much for enlightening me and correcting me. Another commenter mentioned that Jewish people were given protection in Poland, I think that would be a much better example.
I’m a Jew and an atheist. I was raised conservative, so I grew up with Jewish community and religion. I’m still part of the Jewish community, just not religious.
I’ve never heard a Jew say that a Jew is one who follows and practices Judaism. My understanding has always been that you’re born Jewish. And that confers a responsibility to practice the commandments of Judaism. If you don’t practice, you’re still Jewish, but not fulfilling your responsibilities.
You can also go through a formal conversion to become Jewish. So it’s either by birth or conversion. But once you’re Jewish, by either method, there’s no going back.
I’m not a rabbi or a scholar, so my explanation may not be rabbinically perfect. But I’ve never heard a Jew say it’s just a matter of following the religion. There are a ton of Jewish atheists like me who don’t practice.
I consider myself Jewish more by heritage than by blood. It’s weird to me that a non-Jew would focus on my blood in isolation, when my Jewish identity is about my family and culture and history… Blood is a very reductionist way to talk about it. (Unless you’re going by the religion, which does go by parentage.)
Lots of identities are formed around collective experiences. Race is a construct, and it was constructed by racists. That racist construct is at the heart of all the history that created Black identity/culture/community in the US.
I’d never run around questioning the legitimacy of Black identity/culture/community. That would be stupid and arrogant. However Black people created i/c/c for themselves, and however they want to celebrate the i/c/c that emerged from a bunch of ugly history, it’s their call. And I’ll celebrate it together with them.
Similarly, the LGBTQ+ community exists largely in response to a history of persecution. I’m a gay man. What do I have in common with a lesbian? Nothing sexual. Only the way society treats us, and how that’s shaped our experience.
I don’t think it’s bad that from persecution, people find meaning and community. It’s a good thing.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. What you said is definitely my understanding of things, I just wanted to see how people feel about Historian Shlomo Sand's view and by extension Shahid's rationalization.
I really appreciate everything everyone has shared.
Well, I like being asked. This kind of stuff makes me think about my own identity more than I’m used to.
If you’re interested in talking about it, I’d love to hear how this compares to your experience as an Arab Muslim… which aspects sound familiar, in terms of how we construct our identity, and what sounds completely different.
I'd love to talk about it. Keep in mind I'm a Shia Muslim so my brothers from other sects might have slightly different takes on this.
This kind of stuff makes me think about my own identity more than I’m used to.
I won't lie, I've looked at your question for an hour and I'm really unsure how to approach it 😂
I guess I don't think about my identity much either.
Identity in the middle east is less rooted in your race than it is in your tribe or religion. Islamic orthodoxy essentially destroys racism, tells people that no one better than any other and if someone isn't your brother in religion they are your equal in creation.
Doesn't stop people being A*holes though unfortunately.
On the Islamic side of things, the middle east was extremely tolerant of other ideologies and sects. Debate and discussion and schools of Islamic thought developed relatively freely as long as they stood upto scrutiny. Unfortunately some ideologies popped up that are intolerant and now we're here 😅
My country (Kuwait) for example historically had people of different sects living as neighbours, intermarrying etc. It was completely normal. Modern political influences and the spread of less tolerant ideologies (salafism) has resulted in more segregation but it's being pushed back by people just living together.
I think we see something similar in Israel where interfaith marriage is illegal yet people still fall in love and try to make it work. Humanity is awesome like that sometimes.
On the Arab side of things... Gulf Arabs are like levantine Arabs, and like north African Arabs, we're all Arabs. Even though we are totally not the same in many ways. Our language and common culture unites us.
There is still discrimination mind you, bad stereotypes, distrust, especially with regards to recent history - but for the most part... When Syria plunged into civil war my country removed the visa requirement for Syrians in Kuwait so they didn't have to worry about being deported. Palestine's struggle is codified in our constitution. So we see each other as one people.
Historically people in the middle east would identify themselves by mentioning which city or town they're from. Beyond that is your family, tribe etc. This still exists in the middle east where your background speaks volumes about you before anyone knows you. It drives our societies because it means we are a society that is driven by shame and honor. Your family name is sacred and you have to do them all proud.
For example if you have a family member who's known to dabble in drugs, this stigma could stop you or even someone a generation later from getting married. Since the spouse-to-be's family wouldn't want to associate with yours.
This takes a heavy toll on people who are more individualistic or people who don't know how to conform.
Sorry, went on a tangent. Point being that race isn't as important in the middle east as it is in the west and generally racism is a bit alien to the middle east. So the middle eastern outlook on identity is quite different.
One of the things I noticed about Jewish people, and I do apologize for generalizing but it has to be said. Jewish people almost always have a profound understanding of humanity. Throughout history Jewish people have always been at the forefront of human rights and activism. I still have alot to learn but the Jewish values shine through what little I know about Judaism and Jewish people and your history. 🙏
Shlomo Sand is known for being very wrong about Jewish ethnicity. These are his personal opinions and they are not shared by any other academics. First, the concept of Jews as a peoplehood ("Am Yisrael" in Hebrew, literally "Nation of Israel") is much older than the concept of Jewish religion. But as long as the Jewish religion has existed there have been Jews who did not observe (or fully observe) the religion, and they have always been considered Jews. Judaism as a religion also does not require Jews to believe in the Jewish God, only to observe Jewish law and ritual. Even Jewish religious law (halacha) considers non-observant Jews to be equally Jewish as those who do observe.
Thank you for sharing your insight. I'll keep in mind that Shlomo Sand is known for being very wrong about that. I'd love to see more views on this to better understand. I plan on asking my question to some Jewish friends as well.
I’m not sure if you’ve ever learned how to play an instrument, but reading Shlomo Sand as one of your first efforts to understand Jewish identity and Jewish ancestry is like learning how to play guitar by directly mimicking Jimi Hendrix, or learning to play piano by trying to perform exactly like Thelonious Monk. Is it worth trying to understand how to play guitar like Jimi Hendrix or piano like Monk? Of course! But they are unorthodox, and they do many things wrong. They sometimes do things that simply sound horrible. They also do things that are incredibly beautiful. Tho how can you tell the difference between nonsense and beauty if you never learned the basics? This is like learning from Sand.
I think you deserve to know what the basics of understanding Jewish identity are if we are all going to make a big point of this. This is something we Jews learn through growing up in Jewish society and being raised by a Jewish family, so it’s hard to just make a list of how you can get the same knowledge without living as a Jew. But you deserve this. Perhaps we should make a post on this sub to create a list of how a non-Jew should start understanding Jewish identity?
I appreciate your comparison. It does help explain what's happening.
I've been casually learning and trying to understand Jewish people for approximately 12 years now. Not in any disciplined way mind you but mainly trying to challenge my perceptions. When I was a kid for example I bought into the antisemitic conspiracy stuff and didn't even realize it was antisemitic! In my mind I made a division between the two. But that was before the advent of smart phones and social media etc! So I've come a long way but still know I have much to learn.
I don't question it when a Jewish person explains something like that. I just accept it and try to add it to how I see things.
But you deserve this. Perhaps we should make a post on this sub to create a list of how a non-Jew should go about learning of Jewish identity?
You're too kind. I think a resource like that can be really helpful in general and specifically helpful with fighting ignorance.
Absolutely. And I mean, growing up in Israel or n the West, we definitely get exposed to a lot of bigotry and conspiracy around Arabs and Muslims. We also get taught a lot of inaccurate and harmful ideas about our own Jewish identity, because the people and institutions that teach us this are almost always Zionist in nature. So learning about Jewish identity in an accurate way is honestly something that even us anti-Zionist Jews need to be doing
About 10 years ago I found out Kuwait had a Jewish district and that we had Kuwaiti Jews!!! Whenever I talk about this to other Kuwaitis, the older generation tells me that they're still here but hide their identity.
They were mainly migrants from Iraq that came after one of the invasions of Iraq I think the Mongolian invasion. Jewish people were given special rights, including brewing and selling their own wine!
I think the loss of the middle eastern Jewish communities is one of the biggest tragedies/crimes of the establishment of Israel and one of the biggest losses to humanity. So many histories, so many vibrant people and cultures. I pray that one day the Arab Jews can return home to their home countries here.
Perhaps among the worst side effects of the brainwashing in Zionist institutions is the forced conformity and erasure of culture and history of the non-European Jewish people that went to Israel. Professor Nurit Peled Elhanan called it cultural genocide.
I know that Arab Jews in Israel still speak Arabic, only they avoid it in the presence of others. And I've read about the racism and stigma that stratifies Israeli society based on their background.
It's one of the main reasons I pray for all of this to end.
Yes! I’ve actually met someone from that community who know lives in the US. It totally makes sense that there would be a Jewish community in Kuwait. We were living in Babylonia/Mesopotamia since 586 BC, and there were so many different foreign conquering invaders over the past ~2,600 years that led to us migrating around to various locations in that general area.
My understanding is that most of the Kuwaiti Jews came from Basra in the 1770s, after Shah Mohammad Sadeq of the Zand Dynasty invaded Basra. But I think you’re correct as well, there were already Jews living in Kuwait who had fled from Baghdad after the Mongols sacked the city. I know they were very active in connecting Kuwait to the trade routes between India - Baghdad. I was not aware of these special privileges around brewing alcohol tho, very interesting! Thank you for the info :)
You should check the following links if you’ve not already checked them out. Some really great analysis of the important place Arab-Jews had with the rest of the Arab world, in the context of what’s going on right now in Palestine.
Thank you so much for sharing more information about the community that we lost here in Kuwait and thank you for sharing these articles they're great. They really highlight the plight of the Mizrahi Jewish people... To me it's one of the biggest tragedies. I wonder if things could have been different and how they would look today...
Did they speak Arabic? Did they want to come back to Kuwait? Were they doing okay?
Earlier today I was talking to my mother about the whole exchange between Yemen and Israel and I mentioned the Jewish population around the world and she stopped me to ask how many of the population is Zionist. My mum is in her 60s and she's not very tech savvy, she's religious and speaks only a little English yet she understands that there's a distinction.
She was upset when I told her that perhaps 90% of the Jewish population of the world is Zionist. She added that "The Jews were our neighbours, lived amongst us, we never had problems with them... Then the Zionists influenced them, a few people managed to affect them" she was referring to the groups like Lehi, Irgun and the Hagana. She was genuinely upset about this, she sees the death in Gaza every day...
I forget that this is the normal thought process in the middle east. I spend most of my online time in the English sphere of the internet so I often come across dog whistles, alt right, groypers, Neo-nazis etc and it feels like antisemitism is almost mainstream as bad actors try to infiltrate our communities. So my mother's natural understanding that Jewish and Zionist is not synonymous was quite refreshing.
One day the communities of the middle east will be restored, God willing. 🤲
One of the academics in the podcast I linked talks about how we often think of Arab-Jews/Mizrahi becoming Zionists as some natural historical process that was inevitable, when in reality there were so many opportunities for history to play out far more differently than our current reality. We only think of the Arab-Jews in this way because the European Jews were so effective in making the world believe that their story was the same story for all the Jewish People.
And yes! He is actually a professor of Arabic linguistics at one of my local Universities. I audited his Arabic 101 course last summer (when you take a single University course as someone who doesn’t attend the school as a student). Ended up getting to know him very well outside of class, his family migrated to from Kuwait to London in the 1920s before he was born, and he went to University in the US in the late 1960s, and has been here ever since. Hes been back to Kuwait and also to Iraq many times over the years :)
I believe that 90% number is an overestimation (let your mother know so she has one less thing to worry about 😂). It’s likely in the 75%-80% range at this moment, some polling even suggests it’s more in the 68%-70% range during times that Israel is not technically at “war”. But the problem with this polling is that “Zionism” can have so many different meanings, as it is essentially just a political philosophy like Capitalism or Communism.
Look at all the internet debates over what is “true” communism, and those who say we should judge communism based on the results of how it’s been historically implemented. The same is true for Zionism-
The Arab world generally looks at Zionism from its actual material history since the 1890s, and how it currently functions in our reality. The Jewish world views Zionism in a much more theoretical perspective, and sees Zionism as having the potential to change and adapt, along with certain manifestations of Zionism to be “bad” or “wrong”. So you can have a Jew who says they are Zionist, and they can be in complete agreement with a Palestinian who is anti-Zionist. The Palestinian will tell the Zionist that they want a single democratic state from River to Sea where Jews and non-Jews live equally with the same rights under one nation. And the Zionist will say they believe in the same! But for them, so long as Jews can live freely between river and sea, this is still Zionism.
This complexity often cannot accurately be captured in polling and statistics. But even if we accept the 90% number, that means that there are almost 1.5 million Jews in the world who are anti-Zionist. 1.5 million people all uniting for one cause is quite a large number…
By "Jewish blood" (which is more or less an antisemitic concept)
This is definitely not an antisemitic concept. Jews have always used direct descent (either matrilineal or patrilineal, depending on the time period and denomination) as the primary means of defining one as a Jew. Conversion has always been a rare and complex process.
I was always under the impression matrilineal was the 'go to' definition on being Jewish. But this thread has opened my eyes in terms of wider definitions. But my own thoughts on these non-matrilineal definitions, is that if you widen them so much, don't they become meaningless? I mean if I follow practices traditions and holidays and decide to commit to if from today, does that make me Jewish? They will be in-group definition somewhere, that's why religious laws exists, so that you can delegate decisions to a higher power rather than man.
This may be an oversimplification and is a sensitive topic today, but I will try to explain. Before matrilineal descent became the norm roughly 2000 years ago and was further codified in Rabbinic Judaism, Jews practiced patrilineal descent. In recent modern times, the Reform Jewish denomination has allowed patrilineal descent in addition to the traditional matrilineal descent. Orthodox and Conservative denominations still only practice matrilineal descent.
What makes you Jewish is formally obligating yourself to uphold the covenant that God transmitted to the Jewish people by Moses's hand at Sinai.
The only passive way you can find yourself obligated to uphold the covenant is to be born to a woman who is obligated to uphold the covenant. All other ways to become obligated require human action.
I think something that might clarify what's happening is that Jewishness under Islam and Jewishness under Christianity are two different things. Yes, under Islam we have to pay the jizya as dhimmi and we are second-class citizens but we are citizens. Under Pauline Christianity we are cursed theocides whose stubborn refusal to accept Jesus is an affront to God and it is Christendom's duty to punish us in the name of God's love. Pauline Christianity is doctrinally antisemitic in a way that Islam is not (Christianity is also non-Abrahamic, but that's a spicy take for another time).
Shahid's understanding of Jewishness is what I understand the Jewishness of the Ummah to be, and in fact it starts to make the Sephardic drive to do certain things, like Maimonides's attempt to enumerate 13 principles of Jewish faith, make much more contextual sense. A Jew of the Ummah who needs somewhere to pray is permitted by halakha to pray in a mosque. And indeed, in one of the rare cases where Sephardic halakha is stricter than Askhenazic, the Rabbis of the Ummah extended the dietary laws (specifically the prohibition on eating food cooked by a non-Jew, bishul akum) to require that kosher food be substantially cooked by a Jew. Why? Well it makes sense if the line between Jew and non-Jew isn't being reinforced by antisemitism.
What Shlomo Sand is describing is the end point of the Jewishness under Christendom where not even conversion will save us due to the Christian society's need to persecute. The Ashkenazic drive to see everything in terms of persecution and antisemitism -- indeed, to even set up the idea of a Jewish racial identity as distinct from liability to the Mosaic Covenant and then justify it on the basis that Jewish religious law accounts liability to the Mosaic Covenant from birth as descending from the mother and not the father, it's a profound confusion of ideas that arises out of Christian persecution. You see this too with Ashkenazic religious neuroticism: I strongly suspect the reason why we don't eat peas or green beans (kitniyot) on Passover is because maybe if we religion hard enough God will cause the Christians to relent. Oh, and, Jews are forbidden by halakha to enter a church, and because we have antisemitism doing the job of keeping us separate, kosher food can be made by non-Jews provided there is the most tenuous involvement of a Jew.
So, the responses you get to this question may make more sense if you know there are at least two different notions of Jewishness at play, and that many Jews only know of the Jewishness under Christendom. I myself only really started to grasp it after I got off the Zionism bus.
Personally, I'm increasingly coming around to the traditional understanding (which u/ohmysomeonehere is giving you) which is that to be a Jew, one has to keep the mitzvot. To be a Jew is to do the things a Jew is expected to do, and it is not a state of passive being. One is born obligated to the mitzvot, one is not born entitled to the fruits of their performance. The consequences of this "secular Jew" notion have been absolutely disastrous. Someone who eats pork, who mixes meat and dairy, who murders, who violates the shabbat, and who worships idols (so, basically, your average resident of Tel Aviv) somehow is entitled to a land that was granted by divine covenant only to people who do none of those things? Let's not even get into how the land was entrusted (not given) to us conditionally (not absolutely).
while i take pause at some of your framing of halachik points as not in line with the reasons the actual poskim give for their own conclusions, I very much appreciated you well written last paragraph and the points contained.
at risk of taking away from the potency of your valid points, let me push the conversation forward with this: the image of the persecuted Jew (" drive to see everything in terms of persecution and antisemitism ") is imagery created by and harbored by Xtians and is not something you will find in Jewish primary sources. Like many things Xtian, Jewish victimhood has been one of the major selling points and one of the central heretical teachings of Zionism.
The Torah perspective is clear: we Jews believe in schar v'onesh reward and punishment that is ultimately just for every being. More guns or a biger army don't give us any more protection than we have with "just" the merit of our mitzvos or the payback for our, ahem, "good deeds". We know that our life and death, riches and happiness, are decided on Rosh Hashana each year, and if we want to change the decree, we have the tools of "tefila, tzedukeh, and tshiva" "prayer, charity, and repentance" not carpet bombing the non-Jewish communities around us.
However the "sheep to the slaughter" or the idea that Jewish life in europe was just running from one pogrom to another and Jewish life was pure suffering is straight hasbara. Jewish life in Europe wasn't 2000 years of holocaust violence and persecution. There were ups and downs of thriving Jewish communities, with a spiritual and social fabric that Israel could only dream of.
The person in the video, in my opinion, should not speak about things he doesn't understand. He should at least do a proper research (mentioning Zand implies he didn't). Worse of all, he has the audacity to say who is a Jew and who isn't. Should a Jew say whether or not a Muslim is still a Muslim even if he doesn't follow the five pillars of Islam? I think that debate should be left to the Umma.
If you go by the bible, and by orthodox Judaism (I am not familiar enough with the reform, conservative and anything else) you are a Jew if your mother is a Jew. I personally don't think it should be limited to the mother. Even if you convert to another religion, you are still a Jew. You can't escape...
Shahid ignores the fact that Judaism is also a culture and an identity. There are already secular Jews or semi-secular Jews in the 18th century. Before Zionism. Though most of them still knew more about religion than many secular Jews know toady (and probably more than some religious ones as well).
I can be a Jewish person without believing that Moses was a prophet, fasting on the Yom Kippur, giving alms, saying שמע ישראל, or doing a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and so on. I think he projects his Islamic beliefs on Judaism, as he said "according to Islam". I don't know why he thinks that what Islam have to say on the topic matters here.
Quoting Shlomo Zand's book, "When and How the Jewish People were Invented", is being lazy. Zand is not an expert on the period or area he talks about in that book, nor is he a biblical scholar. Zand is an expert on modern France, and especially the history of the left and cinema. His other book which I think he implicitly talk about is "When and How I stopped being a Jew". It's an interesting read, but it's just his opinion about how to reimagine identity. If that person really wanted to learn there are other people who are experts on that topic.
I am Jewish because I imagine myself as part of a larger community, connected by history, tales, tradition, collective memory, in my case language (Hebrew, but Ladino, Yiddish, and others are just as valid), part of my imagery and the metaphors I would use, knowing Hershale or Joha (if you know another one please share), food, my name, and there are many more (didn't mention the holidays because I rarely celebrate those). Basically, I am a Jew because I was told I am one, and because I 'practice' that identity on a daily basis, without believing that there is a god. Some Jews would say otherwise, but it's a Jewish debate.
Lastely, Antisemitism definitely 'helped' Judaism by forcing Jews to unite, even if they aren't religious, because of the shared threat, but that's a reductionist view imo. People also like tradition, the sense of community, communal support, they understand religion differently than others and translate it differently in day to day life, and so on. Zionism was influenced by antisemitism, there's no question about it, and it is still influenced by it today. But the connection to the land is not a Zionist invention, and even if you somehow remove antisemitism from the world Israel won't disappear.
If Shahid cares about the Jewishness of Jews he should go read on the subject. He would find many answers. Maybe then he would ask himself whether or not it's his place to take sides in this debate.
There are probably more things to be said, but I'll stop here.
Shahid ignores the fact that Judaism is also a culture and an identity.
Yes!! This is how I understand it. Across the world the many Jewish communities and the disapora are so varied and vibrant but they still have a uniqueness that made them Jewish.
Lastely, Antisemitism definitely 'helped' Judaism by forcing Jews to unite, even if they aren't religious, because of the shared threat, but that's a reductionist view imo.
Thank you so much for adding this part. This is an extension of my question that I didn't know how to ask.
If Shahid cares about the Jewishness of Jews he should go read on the subject. He would find many answers. Maybe then he would ask himself whether or not it's his place to take sides in this debate
I hope he does. His opinions are impactful on some Muslims.
Should a Jew say whether or not a Muslim is still a Muslim even if he doesn't follow the five pillars of Islam? I think that debate should be left to the Umma.
You know what's funny about this? In Islam you're not allowed to question the faith of another Muslim. Ironic right?
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on this. It really helps me understand this more.
I hope he does. His opinions are impactful on some Muslims.
I wish people on both sides would learn about the culture and religion of the others. Especially if they are broadcasting their opinions to millions.
You know what's funny about this? In Islam you're not allowed to question the faith of another Muslim. Ironic right?
This could be a good example to show what Shahid did.
I could tell you that you are wrong because the Kharijites say that if you don't follow the Koran to the letter you are not a Muslim. Now obviously they are a small sect from the early days of Islam, that mostly died off, but I could present them as the norm and mischaracterize Islamic beliefs.
Another option would be to present Sayyid Qutb, or any other Salafi scholar with a similar approach, who thought that the secular Arab regimes (e.g. Egypt) as the new Jahiliyyah that needs to be fought against, and maybe implying that they are not Muslims, and pass that as the norm. It is a good example, because I know Sayyid Qutb works probably as much as Shahid knows Zand or Rabbinical thought, that is to say very little. So I could easily misrepresent it.
In Islam, and any other religion, it is really hard to group what people think and say "Islam is this..." or "In Judaism they believe that...". It changes over time and space. For example, are Alevis in Turkey Muslim? if so, are they Sunni or Shia, neither, or something else? Erdoğan said last year during elections that "We don't have a religion called Alevi, we only have one religion, Islam" ("Bizim Alevilik diye bir dinimiz yok, tek dinimiz var İslam"). Basically dismissing them completely and saying that there is a single Islam, and when he says Islam he means orthodox Sunni Islam.
I am not sure if the last example is a good one but what I wanted to say is that identity, and deciding on the one-true-faith and who is the representative of a religion is complex. I run away from this argument by saying that there is no representative and no one should speak for the whole group.
Perfectly put. You show a deep understanding of Islam and it's history as well as a wider understanding of the reality of humanity. It's very admirable. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
No problem. I am very close to finishing my BA in middle eastern history (and starting MA), so it's always a pleasure to chat with someone from the neighborhood. If you have further questions feel free to ask here or in a DM.
I will definitely reach out! Congratulations in advance! The same invitation is open to you as well, if there is anything I can help with. (I'm a Jafaari Twelver Muslim from Kuwait, a physician)
I'd say that historically speaking, the Jews comprised a constellation of ethnic groups, each of which preserved its ethnic character via a religion that separated them from the surrounding populations and which posited that all of the groups had a single common ancestry (give or take some converts, who are better understood as formally entering a community than simply adopting a new set of religious beliefs or practices). (Whether or not this common ancestry actually exists is irrelevant.)
Depending on external circumstances, this ethnic character can be preserved in the absence of the religion. This is partially due to antisemitism but not entirely. Take Norman Finkelstein. He's not religious at all, but he has some fairly thick ethnic identifiers--his accent, a certain sense of his ancestry, a certain ease with Yiddish, slang, he's got a certain "look," etc. It's not that any of these things MAKE him Jewish, but they do identify him as such. (Similar considerations apply, for example, to Italian Americans.)
Now, Finkelstein doesn't have kids. If he did, would they be Jewish? Let's assume that the mother in this hypothetical scenario is basically the woman version of Finkelstein, culturally and temperamentally: She has a similar accent, she probably uses a bit of Yiddish slang, maybe curly hair, a bit of a schnozz maybe (although the "Jewish nose" is honestly not quite as common as people think). She also, like her husband, does not like the mainstream Jewish community very much and is not religious. They move to a multiracial, largely non-Jewish neighborhood, they read their kids books about communism and civil rights or whatever instead of Jewish fairy tales, they don't go to synagogue, etc etc. Will their kids be Jewish?
Halachically, yes. Culturally? They don't talk the way their parents do--they sound more like their peers. They know a bit of Yiddish slang, but they don't use it very much, and when they do, it feels awkward. They're know that their grandparents suffered for being Jewish, but knowing the story of a survivor is not the same as growing up with one. Maybe they look a little Jewish nose and hair wise--but this is also kinda how Italians look.
Here we'd probably say that the kids have a Jewish ethnic heritage, but the ethnic identity is pretty thin. This is just how it goes in America--white ethnic identities don't last very long. If THEY have kids with people with upbringings similar to theirs, the fact of their ancestral Jewishness will diminish further from a thin identity to a bit of trivia about their family's past.
These are the facts. From a purely secular, materialist perspective, deciding whether or not each of these people is "really" Jewish or not doesn't tell you anything new. The fact that the Jewish religion demands a binary answer to the question makes things seem more complicated than they are. Is the totally assimilated great grandson of Italian immigranta an Italian? Kinda yes, kinda no, but it's not really noticeable or significant--mostly he's just white.
There are many good replies to this already regarding how Judaism has become as much of a culture and ethnicity over the centuries. I also wanted to add that regardless of if the ethnicity formed in reaction to persecution or not (and this theory is up to debate/not universally accepted by Jews and historians/anthropologists) it's that group's right to form an identity in response. Even before Zionism there were Jews who saw themselves as a separate ethnicity than their neighbors in Europe/North Africa/Central Asia and beyond.
It kind of rubs me the wrong way when non-Jews push their own ideas of what a valid Jewish identity is or isn't. It's not up to Christianity or Islam or whatever other religion to create guidelines or define who is or isn't a Jew.
Also I personally stay critical of anything Sand says because he comes across as contrarian for the sake of being contrarian imo. It's weird to me that he is given so much credit or painted as an anti-zionist when he doesn't support the right of return and supports a two state solution.
That's such a solid argument. I complete agree. And it's true, it's none of anyone's buisness how you identify yourself or how you outline your identity.
I appreciate you sharing your opinion on Sand as well. I'll keep your words in mind, another commenter made a similar statement. I'll be sure to question anything that comes from him.
the idea of Judaism being defined as ethno-religious is one of the primary lies and agendas of Zionism. there is no such definition in 3000 years of Jewish teachings.
There is a very Jewish book that dives deep into this point called "The Empty Wagon" by Rabbi Yakov Shapiro. As a non-Jew, it might be a bit out of reach to work through, but it's as well written as it is long and detailed, explaining how zionism at its core it a redefining of the Jewish identity from a religious group to a secular nationality (holding onto the religious elements just enough as needed to rope in the jewish communities around the world as implicit citizens).
Halacha itself makes it incredibly clear that someone who is born a Jew is always a Jew, regardless of their level of observance or belief (and whether you approve of that or not). This is a fundamental element of Jewish identity, it has nothing at all to do with Zionism.
there are some semantics at play here, so please bear with me and keep the convo in good faith,
In Judaism, there are two distinct groups "Jews" and "Am Yisroel".
"Jews" are anyone who is obligated to keep the contract called "the Torah", i.e. either born to a Jewish mother or accepted upon himself to join that contractual obligation through a specific "conversion" process. One a person becomes a party to that contract, they cannot remove their obligation, hence "once a Jew always a Jew".
"Am Yisroel" is a subset of "Jews" who keep a baseline part of that contract, i.e. they "act like Jews" in public. The specific requirements of being part of "Am Yisroel" as per Judaism is to keep shabbos publicly, keep the majority of relevant commandments, not practice idolatry, not murder, and believe in what's known as the "13 principles of faith". Without diving much deeper into where that "red line" sits, the point of bringing this up is that Judaism is clear that there is a "red line". Someone who falls outside that "gate" is, while still obligated to the mitzvos as a Jew, is no longer part of "Am Yisroel.
So, a Catholic apostate Jew would still be a Jew yet not be part of "Am Yisroel". Such an apostate is treated halachically as a non-Jew, in that there is no areivus, no problem of lashon hara or lifnei iver, his wine is ayin nesech, he gets no share in the next world, etc, etc.
Beyond all this, my statement about zionism's goal is not about redefining the religious definition of "Jew" (because, obviously, zionism is not a religious player), it is about trying to redefine the common understanding of a "Jew" from a person who keeps shabbos and other religious fundamentals and replace it with a "national" identity that requires nothing jewish.
This is simply not a traditional understanding of Jewishness even in mainstream Orthodox thought. Maimonides "13 principles of faith" are not halachicly binding in any way. The only example you give that is generally accepted as apostasy is a Jew who actively practices Christianity, but even then it's not so clear cut.
this is clear ABCs of Judaism (well aleph-bais of Judaism, but ya know) from mishnayos, through ramabam, through mishen brerura/chofetz chaim. i don't think anything I've written is even remotely controversial by any standard, and I have certainly never seen any posek attempt to pasken differently.
The "13 principles of faith" is not a formal concept, just a common title given to foundational tenants of judaism that are halachikly binding. In fact the "13 principles" are primarily derived from exactly the part of Rambam's Yad Chazuku that delineates who is halachikally an apostate and who not.
If you have any source of a posek from any generation that disagree, let me know. It should be easy to find as these things come up very frequently in hilchos shabbos.
I would say there’s no emotion or feeling attached to that statement for us Jews, because it’s just odd 🤷🏻♂️ Jews in Germany in the 1930s were banned from certain professions and were banned from marrying non-Jewish ppl. And that’s just a few examples!
There literally zero connection to the conditions of Jewish life in 2024 than it was in 1934 Germany… it’s honestly disgusting that anyone would compare what the European Jews experienced under Nazi Germany to Zionists having their feelings hurt in 2024
It's truly the heights of oppression when you can't call for the extermination of another people without being shouted down. It's quite literally exactly the same thing as eugenicists like Charles Murray whining about being deplatformed.
It's impossible to watch videos of Zionist swine aligning themselves with actual neo-Nazis, attacking anti-genocide protests, and then being like, "Yup, this is exactly like when they purged Jewish professors from the universities in 1933".
one thing i just realized bcz of this comment is one of the major denominations of judaism is missing, Reform. The three main denominations would be orthodox conservative and reform, and i put them in order of observancy. Reconstructionism has gained a lot of prominency but it’s pretty much only an american denomination and it’s pretty new comparatively. It’s also interesting bcz they have both masorti and conservative which are kind of the same thing. Mods if u see this maybe add a reform flair.
u/ezkoriAshkenazi, American, raised in orthodoxy, currently culturalJul 10 '24
Jewish communist, at least to me, is just the political alignment of communism held by a Jewish person. Jewish values (whatever that means lol) might inform said communism but it is more just the intersection of the two identities.
Post-Zionism (as defined by Wikipedia) is “post-Zionists advocate the evolution of Israel into a non-ideological, secular, liberal democratic state, to be officially neither Jewish nor Arab in character.” As with all things that use the term Zionism, it really doesn’t tell you much about the persons actual political opinions since Zionism has no (universally accepted) definition (and many self proclaimed zionists and antizionists believe in the same thing— gotta love ambiguity 🙃)
7
u/ezkoriAshkenazi, American, raised in orthodoxy, currently culturalJul 10 '24
Reconstructionist Judaism was invented by mordechai Kaplan in America. Its big major tenet is Judaism as a living civilization rather than an inherently “theistic religious” group. His philosophy is where Jewish Community Centers (jccs) come from. Generally reconstructionist communities will vary based on specific community, as communal norms and values are stressed rather than a worldwide religious “Jewish” dogma
8
u/ezkoriAshkenazi, American, raised in orthodoxy, currently culturalJul 10 '24
Hiloni is just the Hebrew word for secular; Masorti is (what can most easily be compared to) conservative Judaism in the rest of the world that isn’t USA and Canada. Beta Israel are an ethnic group of Ethiopian Jews. I don’t know what matzpen is but can look it up and get back to you.
Matzpen (Hebrew: מצפן, lit. 'Compass') is the name of a revolutionary socialist and anti-Zionist organisation, founded in Israel in 1962 which was active until the 1980s. Its official name was the Socialist Organisation in Israel, but it became better known as Matzpen after its monthly publication.
I've found Matzpen is spectacularly useful in understanding Israel from a Marxian and not a Liberal analytical frame.
5
u/ezkoriAshkenazi, American, raised in orthodoxy, currently culturalJul 10 '24
Orthodox Judaism is a wide label that spans many many smaller sects of Judaism with a wide range of practices and beliefs. There are hareidi (ultra orthodox) Orthodox Jews and modern Orthodox Jews and many outside and in between. As such; wr to orthodoxy, it’s often useful to specify what kind of orthodox community. That being said, Orthodox Jews tend to be the most traditional and ritual focused; conservative judaism is an American sect of Judaism that spawned out of the American reform and American orthodox movements pulling away from the Center. The greater movement still values tradition and ritual, though advancements have been made for modern times such as women/nb rabbis, queer (kinda) acceptance (complex issue to discuss but happy to get more into it if you want) and other stuff. The large majority of Conservative Jews in America are not ritually observant and, at least from the perspective of onlookers, may seem like Reform Jews. TBH the line between reform and conservative (and orthodox and conservative) has been getting blurrier and blurrier. Will continue in another comment.
Thanks for taking the time. It's a really good primer and will re-read and digest more.
The immediate thing that comes to mind is; what little I think I know about Judaism is prolly wrong. I was only really exposed to Haredi who stick to themselves and what I imagine are Zionist non-observants.
Can any recommend any Jewish IG accounts to follow. I want to learn about the everydayness practicing elements of being a Jewish man or woman. I am currently following a certain Rabbi on IG, but his Pro-IDF stance, denial of any Palestinian casualties are sickening to me.
What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Rabbi Maimonides ?
Unfortunately can't help with 1. It might help if you have any specific questions because Jews will practice differently depending on their religiosity.
First thing that comes to mind is studying him in high school and that he was one of the greatest and most respected scholars and Rabbis in Jewish History. There's a reason his commentary is still studied and debated to this day.
sorry for the solicitation, but I mod a sub "AntiZionistJews" for religious jews who know the truth about israel. you can make a post there (or DM me privately)
How do religious Jews feel about involving themselves in communities outside of their social circle? Is it something that seems frightening because of the fear of antisemitism, or is it something that can be engaged in with an open mind ?
It totally depends on which community or variation of Judaism they belong to. And the level of how observant they are. It’s a small percentage of Jews who try to completely avoid assimilating or participating in the non-Jewish society around them.
But in general, Jews who are very observant tend to be less concerned with anti-Semitism than secular Jews.
just because i though i could get a variety of answers with this one: what do you think/how do you feel about converts? do you personally consider someone who practices mitzvot, eats kosher and attends shul, but hasn't finished their conversion process a jew?
reflecting some of my insecurities in that one lol. and a more politically charged question:
how do you feel about people trying to convert and adopting a "pro-israel" stance just to "fit in" with the majority of jews?
i'll explain the second question in more detail: i'm personally converting and i attend a queer synagogue and I haven't had any issues with this, as -i think- most of my congregation sees palestinians as having a right to live in peace alongside israelis. they're not full-blown anti-zionists, but i've attended shul in other synagogues before and i've heard some really despicable islamophobic and xenophobic stuff against palestinians.
as a someone in their conversion process, i can see how many of us might feel pressured to adopt a more pro-israel view because everyone around us IS pro-israel, and maybe even the rabbi sponsoring your conversion might be pushy and not let you convert unless you are pro-israel. (not that i've heard of any, but i can very much imagine it could be a possibility)
Personally, I would consider someone doing all of those things to be a Jew. In my opinion, the conversion process is so drawn out because it’s not just meant to be a religious change, but also becoming part of the Jewish people by embracing our history, traditions, and culture. So someone who is doing all of those things to me is now part of the Jewish people, and therefore (in my opinion), a Jew.
In a perfect world, I would hope that anyone going through the conversion process would not feel pressure to adopt a “pro-Israel” stance to fit in. Unfortunately, I’m sure it has happened given the large pro-Israel presence within the Jewish community at large. I would hope this pressure wouldn’t be felt from your Rabbi at the very least, as support for the modern Israeli government has absolutely nothing to do with learning about Judaism in a religious context, much less the requirements that must be met so you can convert. If you or anyone else do feel internal pressure to “conform” somehow, keep the phrase “ask two Jews, get three opinions” in mind- Jews historically have a wide array of thoughts and opinions on nearly everything, and an anti-Zionist stance is not going to be the one thing that makes you the “odd man out” amongst all Jews so to speak. Odds are, there are quite a few people in your shul that share the same thoughts and stances that you do.
I feel that for decades we’ve used Israel as a cudgel to do dirty work overseas that we don’t want to besmirch our own reputation with. It’s had the result of isolating Israel even further than just the treatment of Palestinians has. But with decades of this conditioning, Israel now essentially is immune to calls that it is doing something wrong, as it has been Pavloved into being rewarded by mostly conservative American administrations.
Israel certainly isn’t my voice. I have my own government for that. And many Jews outside America are insular and even the reform movement members outside the US want patrilineal Jews to convert, which I’m vehemently against.
I’ve been told on other subs that ostensibly reform shuls in Europe and Israel tend to only accept patrilineal Jews via a (usually sped up) conversion. I think that sort of mentality is counterproductive to the reform movement itself. If I’m wrong then that’s of course a good thing.
The word choice of insular has to do with a wider proportion of non-American Jews being Orthodox or other more restrictive lines of Judaism and having more strict rules about intermarriage, and just tending to be less inclined to partake in secular life with gentiles.
I think that's probably true. Generally in my country, and I think pretty broadly in reform, jewish background is the deciding factor in whether one needs to convert, regardless of parentage. Even if both of your parents are jewish, you may need to go through a conversion (or not a conversion, but a similarly structured class) to join a shul if you were not raised jewish and have no knowledge of judaism. Many patrilineal jews are not raised jewish (need to convert), many are (don't need to convert). What's the problem with this mentality? It's practical.
You say this like there aren't orthodox jews in the US. There's plenty, some of the most intensely ultra-orthodox sects in the world are based in the US. I don't understand what your criticisms of orthodox and reform practices have to do with this topic, why do you bring this up?
I brought up the sectional differences because if Israel is claiming to represent me but wouldn’t allow me to get married there as Jew then it’s not very representative lol.
The rabbinate of Israel has grown in influence over the last decade and they have an outsized say in secular affairs, and as an Orthodox body they have some rules that leave secular Jews and patrilineal Jews in the cold. And when the government uses a theological determination to create laws or regulations, that’s inherently pretty fucked up imo. Maybe thats just my Americanness coming through - the First Amendment was one of the greatest advances in human rights ever (on paper) at its time. But yeah I don’t think it makes sense for my ethnic background to be deniable by some outdated theology. I don’t care about the religious side of things as I’m irreligious and it’s functionally all “be nice to people, duh” and the rest is pointless window dressing. I do care about ‘tribal’ membership as a Jew, though, as it is a key facet of my identity. To have anyone deny that is pretty messed up.
Dude I'm having a tough time following your point from one comment to the next. Are you trolling? You vehemently disagree with reform conversion standards and orthodox lifestyle choices because of the legislative power of the chief rabbinate of israel? Wtf are you talking about? Who is denying your ethnic background? None of these things are related to each other and it seems like you just wanna take shots at people's religious practices that have nothing to do with israel.
"I don’t care about the religious side of things as I’m irreligious and it’s functionally all “be nice to people, duh” and the rest is pointless window dressing."
Pretty insulting, this is like a weirdly demeaning version of paraphrasing hillel. You're the only one in this thread denying people's identities man.
Someone with a father who was a Jew but not a mother who is one. Most modern versions of Judaism see Jewishness as a matrilineal trait. Reform doesn’t follow this because it’s seen as a hindrance more than a help to the community. The historic enforcement of it was dubious as well (ancient Israelites, modern Samaritans, and the founder population for Ashkenazim all practiced patrilineal descent.)
Are there any particular reasons that matrilineal descendancy was chosen in mainstream sects for defining someone as a Jew compared to patriliniean descendancy?
"Was chosen"? We don't know exactly when the halacha shifted, but it was sometime in the five hundred years between the return of the Babylonian Exiles under Ezra and the destruction of the Second Temple.
To my (limited) knowledge, a reason isn't passed down in the mesora. Much of the pre-Mishnaic mesora that was not preserved by the tannaim has been lost to us.
We can reasonably suppose that the shift from patrilineage to matrilineage occurred for reasons similar to the shift from dowries to bride-prices (of which the wedding ring in Judaism is the vestigial remnant), and this would be the result of structural changes to the way agriculture (and hence, all of social reproduction) was organized.
Judaism is a matrilineal religion, meaning that traditionally a child is Jewish if their mother is Jewish. Traditionally, if your father is Jewish but your mother is not, you are not Jewish. Depending on what sect of Judaism someone belongs to, their personal beliefs, and possibly some other factors, they may or may not consider people with a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother ― a patrilineal Jew ― to be Jewish.
I think we need to be clear about something: we are talking about how halachic obligation to the mitzvot from birth is conveyed passively. It follows from the mother and has since before the last time the Sanhedrin assembled. After birth the obligation must be taken on actively. That can be done by the parents before the child reaches the age of mitzvot, but one who has reached the age of mitzvot must do it him or herself.
Is there a statement in particular you are thinking of? To be honest, i see others express this sentiment far more than the israeli government, they mostly claim to represent their own citizens. Of course Israel is not the voice of jews, I pay no mind to such a claim.
I’m interested in converting, but the only synagogue near me supports Israel. What should I do? Can I covert there while also maintaining my support for a Free Palestine?
Yes u can, plenty of anti or non zionist jews belong to zionist synagogues, some synagogues r gonna be more annoying abt it then others but if u want to pursue conversion that shouldn’t stop u. Now idk rly how the conversation process goes but if israel comes up with u and the rabbi there may be some issues.
It's still Wednesday where I am but I know I may have missed the cut off for lots of folks.
Would anyone be willing to share their perspective or understanding of dhimmitude, and/or resources to understand it better? From an anti-Zionist perspective?
I see it discussed a lot by Zionists as a justification for Israel, and that those of us "on the left" or "in the West" just could never understand and are so privileged to be dismissing what it was like. I put those in quotes bc it seems like the people who say things like this like to flatten "the left" into a homogenous group of very privileged people instead of people like me who hold multiple marginalized identities who are very capable of understanding how multiple kinds of oppressions can exist, and still don't justify ethnic cleansing, apartheid & genocide.
On the other hand, I definitely think it's dismissive for leftists to dismiss dhimmitude and insist everything in the Levant and Middle East was all harmony. Even if Israel should not exist in its modern iteration, many people who experienced dhimmitude in some countries had no other safe option and this was/is not their fault.
I don't want to speak for or over anyone when this comes up in discussion, but would love some more knowledge about this and to potentially be more prepared for discussions about this.
Thank you in advance and also for any grace in how my language or understanding may be gratingly ignorant.
This is probably a better question for an Arab Muslim or a Muslim from a historically Muslim land. I can tell you that Zionists create a very stupid and ahistorical narrative around the concept of dhimmitude. And none of us Arab Jews or Jews from Muslim countries have living family members that would’ve been subjected to dhimmitude. Because the Ottoman Empire abolished this during the era of Tanzimat reforms in the mid 19th century. That’s 5+ generations ago…
Wow, thank you so much for your response--I'm very surprised because I genuinely had been led to believe that Arab Jews who had to leave countries in the late 40s and through the 50s had experienced this. Which I guess says a lot about the power of narrative and propaganda. I really appreciate your redirection for how I could learn more and the clarification. And a good reminder to proceed cautiously and thoughtfully when learning about histories not our own.
In regards to the conflict (I do not want to disrespect you folks) in Gaza, do the Anti Zionist Jewish collective sees Gazans or Palestinians lives as statistics only or do you folks see them as a people also?
I think it’s safe to say that all of us anti-Zionist Jews view Palestinian lives as just as important and special as any Jewish life. We fight for the dignity of Palestinian lives just as we would for Jewish lives.
Some of us get very angry and outraged, because we see how Palestinian life is being treated over 76+ years. It’s exactly how we learned about Jews being ethnically cleansed and discriminated and genocided during our ~4,000 year old history. It’s even worse when we come to understand that Palestinians are Bani yisrael who just converted to Christianity and then Islam…. Some Arabs comment on how us anti-Zionist Jews speak up on Falisteen more than the Arab nations. Well this is because there is such tremendous emotion when we start listening to our Palestinian brothers and sisters.
I mean, I'm not going to speak for anyone but myself but this is, to me, common sense.
I see them as human beings - not a statistic.
I do think that the life of a Palestinian has been de-valued tremendously (even past the point of imagination, post-10/7) by the American media and by pro-Israel advocates like the ADL who seek to criminalize Palestinian existence and center pro-Israel Jewish safety above the physical life of a Palestinian. This is something groups like the ADL have done for years:
Notably, after Israel’s 11-day attack on Gaza and the West Bank in May 2021, in which at least 282 Palestinians were killed, the ADL worked to redirect the discourse to center Jewish victimhood rather than Israeli brutality. (It was at this time Greenblatt made his “Charlottesville every day” comments on television.)
The FBI has not tracked anti-Arab racism and violence for 20 years.
For nearly two decades, anti-Arab violence was omitted from hate crime data.
When the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program developed its hate crime data collection guidelines pursuant to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, it included a category to record anti-Arab incidents. But, according to the Arab American Institute (AAI), the FBI quietly removed that code from the data collection program in 1992. It remained missing until it was reintroduced in the 2015 report.
NPR reached out to the FBI, but did not receive a response.
There have been multiple stabbings and shootings of Palestinians. A six-year old was killed in Chicago. An exchange student was paralyzed from the chest down in a shooting. Etc.
It's common on political shows for popular figures to make remarks about Palestinians that reeks of classic antisemitism - ie Bill Maher claiming Palestinians are 'not like us'. So on and so forth. There's so much to talk about here.
So yea - I can't speak for all anti-Zionist Jews or Jews in general, but I can say that I see all of this happening and I'm against it.
I've been against this shit for 20+ years. My whole adult life so far.
•
u/only-flairs Jul 11 '24
This discussion has been restricted to flaired users only.