Dear Jay,

I feel sorry that you fell into one of the Rabbis' gravest trap.
You claim: "We can't escape our heritage", which is just what they want you to believe, that "once a Jew - always a Jew" (which BTW, besides the rabbis is also what Hitler believed).

The Rabbis want to convince you that a Jew has a *special* soul, unlike anyone else (and on the Sabbath a Jew receives a further extra soul!). One of them (Rabbi Kook) went as far as writing: "While the difference between an animal and a human is just quantitative, the difference between a gentile and a Jew is qualitative". Are these the lessons you wish to absorb?

I have good news for you - this is false! it's a mere superstition!

Of course you may CHOOSE to keep the Jewish heritage or any part thereof, if that's what you want, but there is nothing compelling you to do so (unless it's your wife - then I said nothing...).

As I have not researched the roots of colonialism, I have no opinion in the matter, but as you said, ordinary Australians and Israeli Jews are not rich, nor ever actively pursued colonialism, hence this whole guilt thing does not apply and should probably not be mentioned again - we each have enough personal guilt to contend with due to our own past actions, so no need for this encore.

Also Jay, if our Australian government did just one of the many things that the Israeli government do on a daily basis in subjugation of the Palestinians we'd be terribly ashamed. We can't exactly liken the two anyway. Especially when our govt are making reparations with indigenous Australians. You would have to be kidding to say they have nothing to be ashamed of when considering what the govt they elect does.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't think that Jay is being influenced by anybody. He's simply stating that you don't have to give up being Jewish. He doesn't sound
like he's on any "guilt" trip to me. Not all Jews are Zionists are they? And as far as I know Shlomo Sand, Antony Loewenstein, Robert Manne, Arnold Zable, Louise Adler, and many others who are critical of Israel are still proud to be Jewish. Same as I am still Catholic
(probably not a very good one) despite some of the actions of Cardinal Pell.
Many Jewish people, including Israelis support the state of Israel and believe in its existence but not at the expense of the Palestinian people. As Loewenstein states,
"There must be a way for Israel to exist securely while allowing justice for the Palestinian people."

Things are difficult at present because the current government of Israel believes that erecting walls, checkpoints, and barriers is
in the need of Israel's "security." And the world is told to believe
that the Palestinians should only accept peace on Israel's terms.

However many ordinary Israelis do not necessarily share their government's views. You've only to read "Haaratz," to see that.

Dr. Ron Witton is entitled to make any personal choices he likes.

However as a Senior Fellow in the Faculty of Law at the University of Woolongong he is not entitled to misrepresent international law in relation to Palestine.

He states:

"I had always been aware that Israel had been established for the victims of the holocaust ... However, I came to realise that Israel had been established on Palestinian land."

He is wrong for the following reasons:

1. The 51 member states of the League of Nations unanimously endorsed the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine in 1922 - well before the Holocaust - without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the existing non-jewish communities.

2. The land was not "Palestinian land". It was part of the territory of the defeated Ottoman Empire captured by Britain and France in World War 1. 99.999% of that land was set aside for Arab self determination. 0.001% was set aside for Jewish self determination.

3. The Arabs have never accepted this division of captured Ottoman Territory nor the binding legal effect of the Mandate.

He further states:

"It is the belief in the promised land that has resulted in Israel continuing to defy international law by occupying Palestine land and allowing, and often encouraging, so-called Israeli settlements to spread beyond its borders, thereby destroying any hope of even a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict."

The law and the facts say otherwise:

1. There are no borders - only armistice lines marking a ceasefire in hostilities in 1949

2. The West Bank is not "Palestinian land". Both Jews and Arabs claim sovereignty which remains undetermined since Great Britain left in 1948.

3. Jews are legally entitled to settle in the West Bank under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

4. Israel offered to cede its claims to sovereignty in more than 90% of the West Bank in 2001 and 2008. Both offers were rejected.

I don't know what law courses Dr Witton teaches. I hope it is not international law.

Dear Lexi,

Obviously no one HAS TO follow my recommendation to give up being Jewish: my point was that one CAN give it up if they want, despite the deeply-ingrained, brainwashed belief that it is impossible.

How can Judaism be compared with Catholicism when the one is a nationality and the other is a religion? It's a common mistake to consider Judaism as a religion - Judaism can best be described as an identity-group; or an hereditary-club (which is somewhat close, but not exactly, to the modern concept of nationality). It just happens to own a particular doctrine with [false] claims to God, a doctrine that was cleverly designed not for the service of God, but for the service of the group, for keeping it tightly together and secluded from the rest. In Judaism, the nation comes first, God is secondary. Did you know that the Rabbis are allowed to modify the laws of their own, supposedly God-given, scriptures, if that is beneficial for the advancement of the Jewish nation?

I am not interested in concentrating the discussion on the Palestinian issue, because the topic is much broader while the treatment of Palestinians could be just one symptom. The point is, that Judaism was born in sin, Judaism is based on lies, on which I was brought up and which I am no longer willing to accept.

There is nothing wrong with feeling sentimental about certain Jewish customs that one was brought up on. Some can be even beautiful - especially if everyone is allowed to take part, not just Jews. Note that while some of the customs are nice on their own, the real stories and rationale behind them, which only insiders are usually aware of, can be cruel, fanatic and racist. There are however some beautiful non-racist sections of the Jewish prayers, and tunes, which one may well wish to preserve. If those help one to relate to God, then that is wonderful and there is no need to give them up, but for being decent and truthful, one ought to dispose of the venom of Jewish-identity.

Mr. Singer,

I don't know the author either, but I found your response too personally vindictive and inappropriate for an academic and legal discussion.

More importantly, you are incorrect on a number of issues to which I will outline, for the sake of our readership and for truth and justice.

First of all, the assertion that only .0001% of Palestine was set aside for Jewish self-determination is absolutely incorrect, particularly considering the 1947 UN Partition Plan (which was not completely accepted by the Arab States nor the Jewish Community in Palestine). Along those lines, specifics of previous agreements with regards to a Jewish state in Palestine become more or less obsolete and inconsequential. Furthermore, the fact that Palestine was ruled by the Ottomans prior to the British Mandate does not change the fact that a people with a distinct identity lived on that land as well.

To address your second block of beliefs and unfounded assertions, I would begin by saying your cherry picking of old and vague agreements, precepts, and circumstances echoes the false arguments of Julius Stone from 1981. Even had the international agreements and rules to which Stone referred in his 1981 book been valid upon the book’s publication, they would be unquestionably outdated today. The multiple agreements, to which Israel is party, including the latest agreements at Annapolis in 2007, absolutely forbid the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Your assertion that the 1948-49 armistice borders are the only agreed upon borders is extremely incorrect and seems to forget the 44 years between June 1967 and June 2011 Furthermore, Israel does not claim sovereignty over the West Bank (see Haaretz, today, as just one reference). Finally, Article 80 of the UN Charter says nothing of “Jews are entitled to settle in the West Bank;” how you interpret it as such is simply baffling.

Based on your reading of agreements and international laws, I’m forced to question and seriously doubt your level of legal training.

With respect.