There are many Jewish values. The present government of Israel embodies Jewish values. Those Jewish Israelis who oppose the present government have Jewish values. I am an Australian Jew, and I have Jewish values. I think the present government of Israel is horrible, and I oppose it.

Christian values supported the Holocaust. Christian values supported those Christians who opposed the Holocaust.

Religions are complex and embody many opposing values. Perhaps, it is a more fruitful way to peace to admit that, and concentrate on the humanitarian values shared with those one opposes.

Jewish values and the occupation are incompatible. And should terminate ASAP. and then a negotiated two state solution should be completed.
Alan B.

1. Revenge+Enmity:

"No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you.
However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you.
Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live."
[Deuteronomy 23:3-6]

2. Extermination:

"Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt.
When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God.
When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!"
[Deuteronomy 25:17-19]

3. Demolition+Expulsion:

"“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you cross the Jordan into Canaan,
drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places.
Take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given you the land to possess.
Distribute the land by lot, according to your clans. To a larger group give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group a smaller one. Whatever falls to them by lot will be theirs. Distribute it according to your ancestral tribes.
“‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live.
And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them"
[Numbers 33:51-56]

Dear Yuyutsu,

The Jewish Bible contains parts that contradict the passages you cited:

eg. Exodus 22:9 20 And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19;10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger:

Those who support the present government of Israel and those who oppose it can cite the Jewish scriptures to support their view.

Dear David F.,

Yes, I am very aware of the contents of the Jewish Bible,
it is a diverse collection of Jewish materials of varied views and varied quality,
some sections of it are wise, even spiritual/religious while others are idiotic nationalist and political propaganda, distortions of history and other such rubbish.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't know about the Scriptures of all religions, but they may be the same sort of collection containing nonsense about God and gods. I look forward to the day when we can treat them all as we do the myths of the past about Zeus et al. Entertaining stories.

Dear Alan B.,

I encourage you to continue expressing your views and ideas about Israel in here instead of in the series of automated weekly articles by the "David Singer" AI robot.

Now let's look at what you said:

«Jewish values and the occupation are incompatible. And should terminate ASAP.«

What should terminate in your view - Jewish values or the occupation?

«and then a negotiated two state solution should be completed.»

Embarking on negotiations toward a two-state solution was a mistake to begin with.
Neither Jews of certain Biblical values, nor Arabs of certain Quranic values could ever agree!

Nevertheless, a two-state solution could previously still be forced, with no negotiations, by having the UN security-council simply order Israel, backed by the military might of all superpowers combined, to stay on the western side of its border and the Arabs to stay on its eastern side. Period.

This will not happen now because:
1) America, Russia and China can no longer unite over anything.
2) Israel itself cannot remain a single state. The values of different Israelis/Jews within Israel itself are so incompatible that Israel is on a trajectory to be split. Sadly more blood is going to be spilled in this approaching civil war than was spilled in all of Israel's external wars combined.

A 3,4 or 5-state solution may ensue... or a radioactive desolation.

---

Dear David F.,

«I look forward to the day when we can treat them all as we do the myths of the past about Zeus et al. Entertaining stories.»

And I look forward to the day when the secrets of the various scriptures are revealed, so they are read for their esoteric value and not as silly primitive attempts to describe the physical universe and its history.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The fact is that much of scriptures are silly primitive attempts to describe the physical universe and its history. I live in an old people's home, and some of my companions accept that part of scripture in preference to the scientific view of biology and astronomy. I can disagree with you, but I remain silent in their presence so I can have my meal in peace. Darwin and Copernicus are anathema to them.

Dear David F.,

Inasmuch as a book attempts to describe the physical universe and its history, whether correctly or incorrectly, I wouldn't refer to it as a religious scripture.

I doubt that people in ancient times had an interest in the physical universe and its history, like is fashionable in our modern times.
Unlike your misguided companions, they could have held the keys, now lost, to understand their scripture in its true context.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote, "Unlike your misguided companions, they could have held the keys, now lost, to understand their scripture in its true context."

There is no true context of scripture. There is only the context that people, including you, put on scripture.

Dear David F.,

«There is no true context of scripture. There is only the context that people, including you, put on scripture.»

This is an interesting new thesis that I've never heard of before, according to which, the original intent of the author(s) is irrelevant.

So suppose someone was reading the Greek story of Oedipus and honestly believed that it is a religious scripture which calls on men to kill their fathers and marry their mothers, and so he follows through ("I only followed our great ancient spiritual heritage, your honour") - I suppose that makes the story of Oedipus what it is - a nasty piece of religious scripture...

The first duty of any culture/religion is to protect its people.

No one can pretend that the Palestinians are trying to kill Jews every day. Cause and effect.

Around the year2000
there had been close to 120 bombings and terrorist attacks knifings, inside Israel
by Palestinians.

Israel had been quite easygoing about Palestians coming into Israel to shop, work, use their hospitals.

The last straw was when the Palestinians planted a bomb on an Israelie school bus killing all the children on board

It was then the Israelies started
to toughen their stand against Palestinians and attacks in Israel

If an attack was committed in Israel the perpetrators whole family was deported
and their family home
Demolished
This is not the way 5his is portrayed by the article writer as though Israel just started doing this for no compelling reason.

Sick if hearing only the Arab side of this conflict backed up by the lying biased mefia

Lying biased media

Dear ShadowMinister,

«The first duty of any culture/religion is to protect its people.»

A duty of religion is to protect its followers from sin.
Protecting their physical bodies is not in its domain.

«No one can pretend that the Palestinians are trying to kill Jews every day. Cause and effect.»

There is no such thing as "Palestinians", they are just native Arabs, a.k.a original Jewish farmers who remained and never left their land for exile. The word "Palestine" was coined by the Romans for the sole sake of insulting and humiliating the Jews, not something I believe you support.

Yes the natives are trying to kill Jews and certain Jews with the particular Jewish values I noted earlier in the 3rd post of this thread, encourage them to continue with their terror, they keep provoking them because they cannot afford them to stop - they rely on them to keep the other Israeli Jews who subscribe to different Jewish values in fear. Without that fear, no sane Israeli of moderate Jewish values would agree to live together with these fanatics, let alone allow them to govern the country.

The only real war in Israel is internal, Jews of certain Jewish values against Jews of other Jewish values: the so-called "Palestinians" and their violent resistance are only a symptom of that war, they are used as a proxy, a punching bag between the warring sides. Israel is on a trajectory to be split up, likely in an ugly civil war.

---

Dear Cherful,

«there had been close to 120 bombings and terrorist attacks knifings, inside Israel
by Palestinians.»

And also many Israeli Jews, including those currently in power, who covertly rejoice whenever they hear the news of these attacks.

Yuyutsu

Yes I have noticed what you say about Jews themselves going against other Jews seeming to believe that it will all have a happy ending if they all just join hands and talk about love and tolerance.

If an enemy keeps attacking you with your death in mind, no matter how you try to appease them I think the chance of a happy ending is optimistic

Dear Cherful,

«seeming to believe that it will all have a happy ending if they all just join hands and talk about love and tolerance.»

What you speak of is just a tiny minority.

Jews have many other issues besides to fight about among themselves, including presently whether or not Israel remains a democracy.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't agree that Israel is a democracy. I don't think any country can be a democracy if it represents only part of its population. Israel cannot be both a Jewish state and be a democracy. Any country which represents only part of the population of a particular ethnicity or religion cannot also be a democracy. I don't believe that Australia is a democracy while there are Christian chaplains in the state schools. A democracy must keep hands off religion, and in a democracy religion must keep hands off government. We define democracy differently.

Dear David F.,

Well obviously democracy is a farce - no people in the world are allowed by states to control their own fate.

Even the idea of democracy is silly - it is said to be majority-rule, but majority of what?
They bundle you up with an arbitrary cohort, then claim that a majority of that cohort can make the rules which bitterly affect your life, but what have you to do with that particular cohort of people you don't even know, let alone ever chose to associate yourself with? They have been added without your permission in order to dilute your vote and render it insignificant. Why just people, and why just over 18 years of age? They could have done anything, they could just as well add all cats and dogs to that count if it advances their interests, then maybe appoint a human of their clan as their "guardian" to represent their interests... mice too, and kangaroos of course, cockroaches, mosquitoes, ants, even animals that appear only in their dreams - why are their interests not equally represented, why won't they have the same voice/vote as yours?

So this whole talk of "democracy" is very relative, but even according to the rules of that particular game, Israel, with all its faults, is (or was till now) relatively more democratic than Australia.

Why? because in Israel, all those who vote (i.e. Israeli citizens, at least them) have an equal vote each, whereas in Australia the power of any citizen's vote depends on where they happen to reside - given two neighbours opposite the same street, one can have a significant vote because their side of the street happens to be in a marginal electorate, while their neighbour lives in a different electorate and knows in advance that their vote can make absolutely no difference. Also in Australia, prisoners cannot vote, as to challenge the laws that placed them in prison to begin with - in Israel they can!

[continued...]

[...continued]

«I don't think any country can be a democracy if it represents only part of its population.»

So in Australia, even according to the rules of that game, only the citizens who live in marginal electorates can be realistically represented.

«Israel cannot be both a Jewish state and be a democracy.»

Correct, but there are no democracies anyway.

«I don't believe that Australia is a democracy while there are Christian chaplains in the state schools.»

And even if there weren't chaplains there, it still wouldn't be a democracy... but how did you logically arrive at this conclusion? One could similarly claim: "a state that allows its school-children to have strawberry ice-cream at breaks cannot be a democracy".

«A democracy must keep hands off religion»

All states must keep hands off religion, be they democratic or not.

«and in a democracy religion must keep hands off government.»

Ditto. Religion must keep away from all regimes like from fire, democratic or otherwise.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "And even if there weren't chaplains there, it still wouldn't be a democracy... but how did you logically arrive at this conclusion? One could similarly claim: "a state that allows its school-children to have strawberry ice-cream at breaks cannot be a democracy".

You have just exposed how shallow and senseless your arguments are.

Dear David F.,

Care to explain?

One could claim, "if a state does not provide me with ice-cream then it is not democratic".
Another could claim, "if a state allows people to have ice-cream then it is not democratic".
One could claim, "if a state provides a fire-service then it is not democratic".
Another could claim, "if a state fails to provide a fire-service then it is not democratic".

One could claim, "if a state fails to provide religious services in its schools then it is not democratic".
While you claimed, "I don't believe that Australia is a democracy while there are Christian chaplains in the state schools."

The common point in all these cases is that people sometimes claim at whim, irrationally, "if a state doesn't behave as I like then it is not democratic".

I happen to agree with you that there should be no Christian chaplains in state schools (and off-topic, I believe there should be no state-schools anyway), nevertheless, for the life of me I cannot see how this is possibly connected to democracy or its absence.

Yes, I happen to believe that there should be no state-schools, but that does not translate into believing that states that do have them are democratic or undemocratic.

You know, in your country of origin, many people claim: "If the state does not allow me to have guns then it is not democratic"...

Dear Yuyutsu,

It is a legitimate function of religion to rouse human conscience, to appeal to a sense of right and wrong even though religions do not agree with each other on what is right and wrong.

When religion gets benefits from the state or serves the state in other ways it is no longer free to criticise the state when the state is doing wrong. Religion cannot serve the state and also be free to criticise it.

Dear David F.,

«When religion gets benefits from the state»

Can one jump naked into the ocean, yet remain dry?
Can one enter an active volcano, yet remain alive?
Can one enter a black hole, yet remain visible?
Can one (including even Santa) climb down a sooty chimney, yet remain clean?
Can a religion accept benefits from the state, yet remain a religion?

«or serves the state in other ways it is no longer free to criticise the state»

Religion serves people. If the state is also accidentally served in the course of serving the people, that is too bad but has no resemblance to the case of accepting state benefits.

In any case, religion can offer positive criticism to correct devotees who are in error and seek its guidance, but it is none of its roles to criticize other people or institutions who have no interest in God.

Maharishi Patanjali summed up the attitude of the religious towards others (thus the roles of religion) in the following aphorism:

"In relationships, the mind becomes purified by cultivating feelings of:
1) friendliness towards those who are happy,
2) compassion for those who are suffering,
3) goodwill towards those who are virtuous, and
4) indifference or neutrality towards those we perceive as wicked or evil."

[Patanjali Yoga Sutras, 1:33]
http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-13339.htm#1.33

Dear Yuyutsu,

Religion encourages hate, division and belief in nonsense.

Of course, you will answer that is not real religion. You tootle on about God and will keep tootling your wordy nonsense.

Be well, and keep tootling.

Dear David F.,

If you were to follow your own belief system and apply the necessary logic, then I should expect you to be the first to jump in and claim yourself that religion cannot possibly encourage hate, etc.

I think we already agree that God does not exist, so we need not discuss this any further.
According to your earlier claims, that fact implies that it is not possible to come closer to God.

I dispute that point as I do believe it possible to come closer to God, but fair enough, you have every right to your view.

- But that would mean that not only God, but religion too does not and cannot exist (real religion that is, there are of course all sorts of people who claim themselves and/or their organisation to be religious, we know that, but then they must all be fake, either delusional or deliberate pretenders).

And that being the case, how can something (i.e. religion) which does not even exist possibly encourage hate?

It sounds like from David F that he opposes his own identity. If he blinks he might disappear in a logical contradiction. Anyway worth analysis.