Dear Sadler,

But of course Israel needs to defend itself, which it does, and of course this is legitimate, but what has this to do with anything we discussed so far and who ever contested it?

Those assumed "holy" sites that you speak of are in fact nothing but Jewish national symbols and Israel's insistence on "protecting" them is a nationalistic act, not a religious one. There is nothing holy about old bones, which are likely not there any more and likely never been there in the first place, or likely been the bones of some Arab Sheikh - and there is nothing holy about that hill in Jerusalem which housed the largest and oldest steak-house in history, where animals were slaughtered by the hundreds every day and people came there to eat their meat.

The original steak-house was in fact built by a cruel tyrant who enforced a heavy hard-labour-tax on his people - that is why his kingdom was torn apart after his death, where 10 tribes abandoned his lineage and only his own tribe remained loyal. That same king by controlling the scribes, re-wrote history, portraying himself as the wisest-man ever, and his bloody sinful father who overthrew Israel's former righteous king and decimated his family, as a saintly musician (but somehow his censors overlooked the verse where is indicated that it was not his father that killed the giant Philistine).

So all is about Jewish national aspirations, not about religion and it's only the unholy Jewish national narrative which unashamedly and sacrilegiously attempts to conscript God to the Jewish national service.

I didn't claim that the creation of Israel was a mistake, nor even that Israelis don't want it to continue and flourish. Rather, the mistake is in the state's Jewish identity, as more and more Israelis expose the Jewish narrative for the violent forgery it is. Of course you wouldn't find this in the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Hayom paper: try Haaretz instead!

Obviously my comment touched a nerve, making the mask drop for a moment to show what lies underneath -- raw, brutal Judeophobia. My reference to Israel's legitimate right to self-defense arose from your own statement equating that with Palestinian terrorism and aggression, as equally forms of "violence" to be ashamed of. So I do not believe you when you say you affirm the legitimacy of Israel's self-defense. I suspect that that self-serving plea only holds until there is any particular act of self-defense by Israel at issue, which you will immediately condemn as immoral violence or illegitimate, while excusing Palestinian atrocities of no matter what sort.

Your hateful comments on Jewish holy sites, the Jewish Scriptures, Judaism itself, and the lofty spiritual motives and moral values that have sustained the Jewish people down through the thousands of years despite the extraordinary suffering and constant material sacrifices this faithfulness has brought with it -- a testimony to deep and unwavering communal faith in transcendent realities that none of the persecuting daughter religions can equal -- puts you outside of any decent discussion. Similarly for your assertion that Zionism is based on a "Jewish narrative" that is "a violent forgery." It is all of a piece, Yuyutsu.

Judaism has changed the entire world for the better. It underlies and grounds the best teachings of Christianity and Islam, whatever may be the distortions each has introduced, modern ideologies like liberal democracy and socialism, and even many of the values claimed by atheistic humanism. What the world would be like if Moses had never lived or if the Jewish people had not preserved the Torah and later Scriptural books we can see from the Roman culture, epitomized by its love of gladitorial games and expansionary genocidal wars, lacking the prophetic critique of society inspired by the love of one universal God and the idea that every human being is in the divine image, and the idealization of peace, not war. Nazism sought precisely the de-Judaization that you want, Yuyutsu. It was a nightmare for everyone.

Dear Sadler,

I have supported Israel's right to defend itself neither once nor twice over these pages, including its right to bear nuclear weapons. I also for example supported the dividing wall which stops Palestinian terrorism - only with the caveat that it should have been built exactly over Israel's legitimate eastern border, the "green line". Built where it is now suggests lack of good intentions to move it, at high costs, once security considerations allow, thus exposing its dual purpose - one perfectly kosher, the other not.

The ingenuity of the Jewish use of myth to preserve their nation is not disputed. However, that doesn't render that myth to be true, nor suggests that its purpose is worthwhile.

Judaism changed the world - some for the better some for the worse. It is impossible to predict "what would happen if Judaism wasn't around" or whether in Judaism's absence an equivalent culture would have produced a similar effect.

"What the world would be like if Moses had never lived" is probably exactly as it is now, since most research suggests that no such man existed and others indicate that he was an Egyptian nobleman. Some, noting the similarities between Moses and Joshua suggest that Moses was invented by the Levities in order to counter the worship of Joshua by the other tribes. In any case, all agree that the famous exodus could not have happened and new research suggests that only the tribe of Levy exited Egypt while the other tribes were living in Canaan (Israel) all along.

While the contribution of Jews to humanity is not in doubt, it wasn't due to blind adherence to their national narrative. On the contrary, I believe that it was the enormous mental energy that was released upon leaving the fold which produced the greatest contributions, including by some of Israel's prophets, not to mention Jesus.

The Jewish tradition has a mix of morality with immorality. One evil doesn't justify another. While the Roman love of gladiatorial games, Palestinian terrorism and Nazism are to be condemned, so is the dark side of Judaism.

As mentioned, I believe that Yuyutsu has outed himself and put himself out of all decent discussion. To return to Rev. Williams' allegations, I repeat that they are surprisingly blind to the actualities of the situation, and reflect false historical premises as well. E.g., Rev. Williams alleges that "Jesus was killed as he challenged the injustices that flowed from this city." This assumes that "the Jewish elders" or even just "the Jews" killed Jesus, not the Romans. However, the Romans were the power-holders; crucifixion was their method of execution. Pontius Pilate (whom Josephus tells us had already committed many massacres showing utter indifference to the Jewish people and their religion) actually approved the crucifixion, as even the Gospels admit. Caiaphas, the High Priest, had bought his post from Pilate, and was a Roman puppet despised by the Jews. Since Jesus was a focal point of Jewish protest and messianic hopes, the Romans killed him, just as they had over 20 other would-be messiahs in the first century. The "injustices" of which Rev. Williams speaks flowed from Rome.

Rev. Williams also errs about recent history. There was no "flagrant violation" of any law against Israel holding Jerusalem. "Internationalization" presumed peace, but the cancelling reality was war, started by the Arabs. Israel fought for Jerusalem to save its Jewish population from annihilation, as the international community stood by indifferently, disqualifying itself. Judaism's most holy sites are in Jerusalem, so this merely reaffirmed Jewish rights of residency and protection of Jewish interests utterly violated by the Arabs. The same holds for the 1967 war started by Jordan among other Arab nations, in which Israel finally won back the Old City and the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, etc.

Jerusalem was never the "regional capital for millenia" of the Palestinians. This is simply false. For a more accurate history, see the book by James Parkes (an Anglican cleric and scholar), Whose Land?: A History of the Peoples of Palestine, and as well Paul Charles Merkley, Christian Attitudes towards the State of Israel. On displacement theology, I suggest Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fraticide.

<<As mentioned, I believe that Yuyutsu has outed himself and put himself out of all decent discussion.>>

This is an open Australian site, not Yisrael Hayom, so does everyone else here agree with Sadler that anyone who writes anything unflattering about Judaism is outed from decent discussion?

Neither the Palestinians nor the Jews are saints, both preferring their narrow national interests over having a decent peaceful life.

Further to the issue of the international status of Jerusalem, it should be pointed out that this was the recommendation of the UN General Assembly in 1949, not the Security Council, and such recommendations do not have the force of international law. They are merely recommendations. However, it was not only Israel that rejected this recommendation, for reasons some of which are already indicated above. Jordan did, too. That is, the two parties in actual possession and conflict in Jerusalem rejected the recommendation, making it null and void and impossible of implementation. In an interesting chapter on this matter in the book by the then American Ambassador to Israel, James McDonald, My Mission in Israel: 1948-1951 (1951), which I just recently happened to have read, there is the comment that Israel had made several constructive suggestions to meet Christian Arab concerns which were well received at the U.N., but:

"It should also be pointed out that two fundamental facts (usually slurred over or ignored by all parties) served as an almost insurmountable obstacle to agreement. First, under the British Mandate not only Jerusalem but the whole of Palestine was in effect internationalized; and second, this workable internationalization was ended by the creation of Israel and the de facto division of Jerusalem between Israel and Jordan. Thus the demand that Jerusalem be internationalized was tantamout to the demand that the hands of the clock of history be turned back. Neither Israel nor Jordan would agree to this. And the great powers continued to be unwilling to compel them to acquiesce. Once again, as so often in history, a question of deep concern to vast numbers of people was settled, temporarily at least, by the old rule of thumb that possession is nine-tenths of the law."

This confluence of Israeli and Jordanian interests, McDonald goes on to say, led to secret peace talks between Israel and Jordan which might have changed history had not the extremists under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem blocked them, in the end by assassinating King Abdullah of Jordan in 1951, something unanticipated by McDonald in his book.