As a relatively ignorant observer over fifty years, it seems to me that a single state - a secular, democratic, perhaps federated entity - might be the only ultimate solution to this idiotic war of attrition. It might not happen for many more decades of futility, and it would need a major international peace-keeping force, but since both sides want not two entities but one (under their control and premised on the political, even physical, exclusion of the Other), then why not explore the possibility of a single state ? Neither side would be happy with it, but it would be preferable to another ninety years of pulling the baby apart.

Joe Lane

We can all only hope that Israel takes out Iran's nuclear facilities sooner rather than later,
so as to restore some stability to the region.

J Street are wasting their efforts if they believe they can go into a peace conference with preconceived conditions (i.e. a two state solution)
A single secular,democratic state ruling for all and the means to reach that goal is what a conference should be about.
That may seem impossible but that is what existed before the zionist plan of an exclusive Jewish State and the wars of hate escalated.

Now we have Zionist Fundies praying for " Israel to take out Iran's nuclear facilities"

Yes, go ahead and do that and see where the Shi(r)t falls. It's probably what's needed to unite the Arab world

I am an American Jew living in Australia. We Jews have benefitted by living in countries where there is separation of religion and state, where one's religion or lack of it is no business of government and where government does not discriminate among its citizens on the basis of religion or ethnicity. I am a free person in both the United States and Australia because of that. In Israel there is not separation of religion and state, one's religion or lack of it is the business of government and government discriminates among its citizens on the basis of religion and ethnicity. I cannot support in Israel what I do not support in Australia and the United States. If Israel does not discriminate on the basis of religion and ethnicity it cannot remain a Jewish state. I cannot in good conscience support such a state where non-Jews are second class citizens as I cannot support a state where Jews are second class citizens. Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic. I once thought it could but think so no longer and choose democracy.

Yes You are quite right David. Us Australians look back at the "white Australia" policy with a certain amount of shame, yet our government unreservedly backs Israel who's policies are even worse. They have the Jewish "right of return laws" which means only Jews can move to Israel. But worse than that they treat their existing citizens differently depending upon their religous affiliation. Land that can only be leased to Jews, exclusive Jewish communities, Jewish schools and jobs in government agencies that can only be taken by military veterans (Jews). This is not a system that we should be talking up as a "beacon of freedom and democracy" in the middle east.
Fortunately for the Palestinians, the Israeli's have been so greedy that there is no longer any real chance of a two state solution. It seems only a matter of time that the talk will change to a secular one state solution, based on justice and equality for all. This will be of great benefit to all people in Israel/Palestine.

Good article.
Davidf,
You sound as if you wrote my Jewish daughter's speech when she returned from some years in Israel. She was incensed about the discriminatory practices she witnessed while there. Some of the tales she related at the time were frightening in their hypocrisy and meanness.

She still occasionally scoffs when she hears an Israeli (or Jew) who goes on about the Muslim ambitions to eliminate non believers etc. So much so she now shuns the idea of a 'Jewish' state and is loathed to admit to her 'mother's religion'. This from a person who was raised as a Jew and later a state (Aust) discrimination investigator, now a teacher.

Neither she or I want to simply blame either side but believe that it's time to look at the issue dispassionately and objectively.

I doubt that a one state (secular, for all) solution will work simply because there is too much at stake. There are entrenched extremist elements on both sides. Additionally two sets of people with claims on the same land/property. This combination of emotion and religion does not bode well for a stable state. Political parties will be based on religious grounds there is not enough collective good will to carry it off. It would simply tear its self apart.

To me the only fair solution is a two state solution set at pre 67 borders with an international, Palestinian,Israeli tripartite policed inhabited buffer zone. The buffer zone should be patrolled by the relevant party with international and opposite side observers. e.g. The Israeli side, Israeli police with at least one of each of the other two groups and vise versa. Complimentary laws would also apply in those zones.

Reparations paid by Israel/US, World Bank whoever.
What I suggest is that the money should only be spent on houses, businesses, infrastructure not on holidays, boob jobs etc
What do you think?

Dear examinator,

If there are two states Israel will continue to discriminate against non-Jews and Jews who are not orthodox. The Palestinian state will probably follow the pattern that Hamas has already set up with discrimination against Christian Arabs. The animosities will continue to fester, and the stage will be set for the next war. If there are two states what happens to the non-Jewish population of Israel? They will be encouraged to live in the other state or expected to continue being treated as second-class citizens.

Although South Africa still has many problems there is a chance of solution because neither the Afrikaaners nor the Zulus got the self-determination that they wanted. They are forced to live together and may succeed in doing so in a state which does not discriminate.

The British issued the Balfour Declaration giving land that didn't belong to them to us without considering the people who are living there. Balfour was an antisemite who did not want Jews who were fleeing tsarist persecution to come to England. During WW1 England made contradictory promises to Arabs and Jews.

In large part England, the US and Australia refused to accept Jews fleeing Hitler. During the Cold War there could be no peace because the Soviets backed the Arab countries, and the US backed Israel. Left alone they may have made peace.

Israel is the result of the action of English speaking countries which have done the dirty to both Arabs and Jews.

I think there should be one state which doesn't discriminate against its citizens. The English speaking countries can try to make up for their double dealing in the past by allowing immigration to Jews and Arabs who don't want to live in the same state.

Herman Yunic, looks like you want to start WW3, which will surely happen if tiny little Israel has a go at Iran.

What with Russia and possibly China, even Turkey will be onto blow-bags Israel if she has a nuclear bash at Iran.

Please get some sense in your head, for Chrissake.

Is there official discrimination between Jews and non-Jews in Israel? I didn't know. What kind of discriminatiion?

I thought the conflict in Israel, in a nutshell, was that the Jews will not be satisfied unless they stay, or have the state of Israel, and the Arabs will not be satisfied unless the Jews leave or abolish the state of Israel. So it seems likely that there is no solution while both sides hold these irreconcilable views.

Obviously a single democratic state won't work because there will be nothing stopping the majority from oppressing the minority, which is the standard problem in all democratic states.

As a state is a territorial monopoly, two states won't work either because they both lay claim, at least in part, to the same territory.

The problem is actually in the idea that what is needed is a territorial monopoly of power - in other words, a state. Jews and Arabs get along with each other fine, or fine-ish, where there is no opportunity to oppress each other using a state apparatus, both within and outside of the state of Israel. They even practise their respective religions next to each other with toleration all over the world. The problem is not religion per se, but worshipping the false god of the state, and a democratic state will be no improvement on the original problem.

Hi Peter,
I was just reading that geneticists have mapped the genome of the potato and discovered that it has about a quarter of the chromosomes of humans. In your case, I suspect some hybridity, but are you really suggesting that both a one-state and a two-state solution are impossible in the case of Palestine-Israel, that, in a world of states, a no-state - non-democratic - solution is your preferred option ? That might find favour amongst some Saudis, the Taliban and some ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel, so the question is: do you wish to turn back the clock fourteen hundred years, or three thousand years, and allow people's lives to be dictated by various versions of the Book ? Do you by any chance think of yourself as left-wing ?

Ultimately (which may be some time) a one-state, democratic solution may be the least unsatisfactory, but the only, solution to this dilemma, one which allows the right of return on equal grounds to both Jews and Palestinians to their birth-places in a federated state. Any other solution might have just too many loose ends.

Joe

'...nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.'

'So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.'

George Washington. Farewell Address 1796

Oh how easily the foolish forget their roots ... to their eventual regret.

Antony I quote this to every American I meet. They all are familiar with this speech and it resonates with them. It seems to silence the zealots

Hypocrisy and meanness, said examinator. A "two state solution set at pre-67 borders with an international, Palestinian, Israeli tripartite......"

Richard Goldston's report detailing war crimes by both Israel and Hamas demanding both entities fully investigate the serious charges of targeting civilians and infrastructure is a report I thoroughly support.

Specifically, I respect Goldston's identification of these crimes in the report and the way Goldston encourages trust and faith in Israel's legal system stating that he believes Israel has capacity to do the right thing, regarding a just internal national investigation should it be allocated and allowed. This move would help encourage a similar response from Hamas foreparting the debate among Palestinians, which would be equally capable, providing a breakthrough step toward a greater understanding between the two cultures.

J-Street is a refreshing new voice that helps to voice the views of Jews marginated by the narrow tunnel within the right side of all of Israels supporters. I believe J-Street does wish to "broaden the public and policy debate in the US about the Middle East?” Given the depth of irrationally within the Jewish culture, over the predilection of Israel, I hope J-Street is a step forward to at least begin a process of self-inspection. Rome was not built in a day and unfortunately neither is the human character when it comes to dealing with non-equitable mindsets.

Yes, you are quite right David, thinks Rhys Jones above. More to the point, Jones articulates that we, "Australians look back at the "white Australia" policy with a certain amount of shame, yet our government unreservedly backs Israel who's policies are even worse. They have the Jewish "right of return laws" which means only Jews can move to Israel. But worse than that they treat their existing citizens differently depending upon their religous affiliation. Land that can only be leased to Jews, exclusive Jewish communities, Jewish schools and jobs in government agencies that can only be taken by military veterans (Jews). This is not a system that we should be talking up as a "beacon of freedom and democracy" in the middle east".

http://www.miacat.com/

Davidf
Pretty much how I see it.

PeterHume

From what I've read, my daughter and others who have lived there, what davidf has said is confirmed. The prejudice both institutionalized and where not, the authorities tend to be biased in that they simple ignore or side with the Israelis.

Mind you some the 'Israeli Arabs'(sic) don't help their cause either.

It would appear that Israel is divided into four mindset groups.
The 'Settlers'/'Orthodox' Jews (many of whom are fundamentalist), the Secular Israeli, the comparatively small Arab (no vote, no secure land tenure), and the non Orthodox Jews.

The problem is that the vote is polarized and power depends on the extreme fundamentalist group. As a consequence neither major can afford to discount/ignore the fundy crazies if they hope to govern.

As I currently understand it there are a lot of Palestinians who had legal title to property and land in Israel but they are prevented from ever returning. Others have lived in the areas or in specific houses from before the creation of Israel but don't have a title. Thus they are 'legally?' thrown out the land is then given/bought by settlers who then claim *they* own the land (poison tree concept?).

No Israeli govt dares to simply honour titles/occupancy as would take place in England, US, Aust. The internal conflict over ownership would be enormous.

Apparently there is a significant movement in Israel that want Israel to go secular but the same obstacles prevail. The ideal situation would be two secular states. Palestine would need to be connected and a coastal deep water port.
Given that it would be morally untenable for a third party to force secular Governments on either. Two separate states is the next best option

David f. wrote:

"Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic. I once thought it could but think so no longer and choose democracy."

Did you know that humans are able to fly unaided - no engine or wings are required!?
(Just jump off the 50th floor - I admit that there is still some issue with landing, but hopefully this too will be solved soon)

A democratic one-state solution has only 2 obstacles:

1. Jews
2. Muslims

Other than that all is fine.
Have a nice day!

'... in the next few weeks the Palestinian Authority is planning to call for Palestinian statehood through a UN resolution'

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/11/14/exclusivethe-secret-palestinian-plan/?test=latestnews

Wouldn't this cause a real need for a very public rethink. We'd soon see the limit of US charity to Israel.

Yuyutsu wrote: "A democratic one-state solution has only 2 obstacles:

1. Jews
2. Muslims"

I am a Jew and am not the only one with my opinion. The United States Congress now has a Muslim member from a mainly non-Muslim electorate which is apparently satisfied with his democratic attributes. There have many Jews elected to the Congress.

At one time no Christians were in democratic countries. Now many of them are. I see no reason that Jews and Muslims in the Middle East cannot accept non-discriminatory democracy the way Christians, Jews and Muslims have in the democratic countries.

David,

Perhaps I did not make it clear enough: What I meant by "Jews" and "Muslims" are REAL Jews and REAL muslims.

I understand that you consider yourself a Jew, but according to views you expressed here, I would consider you in fact as a Jew-lite (not my own construct - it was coined by Gideon Levy of Haaretz).

For a real Jew, Judaism is the one ultimate reason for living and for dying; A real Jew would do everything whatsoever in their power to fulfil the 613 commandments and their derivatives; A real Jew would long for the Messiah to arrive any moment and will fight with teeth and nails for each milimeter of the promised holy-land in order to hasten his coming; a real Jew would not embrace democracy, because the only rule he recognizes is the rule of G-d. I don't know about America, but here a real Jew could not sit in parliament because it violates the sabbath and because it commences each session with the "Our Father" Christian prayer. Unlike Israel, real Jews in Australia are very few.

Similarly, a real Muslim would never forsake the commandment of Jihad and would constantly fight to his last breath, terror included, to have the whole world acknowledge the prophet and obey his commandments.

Jew-lites and Muslim-lites can live in peace and harmony, no doubt, but in the middle-east there is a large (up to 30% on each side) minority of the *real* variety that would not allow the others to live their lives in peace. Moreover, their relative numbers are increasing because they procreate well above the average, also because sane Jews and Muslims tend to despair and emmigrate if they can.

---

Keith: "We'd soon see the limit of US charity to Israel."

At times, real charity is expressed by being tough and harsh towards your loved ones. The USA will do a huge favour for Israel if they support Palestinian statehood. I believe that even Netaniahu and most of his Likud party, while expressing the obligatory protest outwardly will covertly be glad for that happening.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I really think you have a lot of hide to tell me I am not a real Jew because I am not a fanatic. I know that the ultra-orthodox do not consider me a real Jew. Who the hell are they, who the hell are you and who the hell is Gideon Levy to make the distinction. I know fundamentalist Christians consider themselves the only real Christians. Who the hell are they?

Jews with my beliefs have fought and died for Israel. Many what you call 'real' Jews suck on the government's tit for subsidies and avoid serving in the army.

I am not constipated. I have no problem spelling God rather than G-d. I can move my vowels.

Dear David,

Many Beduins and Druze soldiers have also fought and died for Israel, so being loyal to one's country, even patriotic, has nothing to do with religion or ethnic identity.

Sorry if what I wrote hurts your feeling of identity - it was meant as a compliment:
if all (or almost all) of the inhabitants of the middle-east were like you David, there would be peace there long ago, no doubt.

Judaism and Islam are violent, fanatic and dangerous movements, but there is nothing wrong if someone wants to adopt and incorporate into their life some of the better and milder elements of one (or even both) of them.

Perhaps it is only semantics, perhaps it doesn't matter what people call themselves so long as they are good and not fanatic: for example, I could enjoy calling myself a pirate and collect pirate-memorabilia (skull and crossbones flags, eye-patches...) - so long as I didn't actually hijack any ship, that's OK!

Nevertheless, I wonder what causes one to voluntarily and unnecessarily hold onto a derogatory title that doesn't even describe them - would that be nostalgia, habit, social conformity or just false ideas and idealizations? no need to change your good habits, harmless and nice elements of Yiddishkeit culture and traditions which you chose to adopt, I just find it sad if someone picks an unwholesome title unconsciously or out of ignorance.

As for "G-d", I heartily accept the Jewish notion of differentiating in writing between their idol and the real God.

Yuyutsu wrote: Judaism and Islam are violent, fanatic and dangerous movements...

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think you carry a big load of prejudice. Judaism and Islam are no more violent, fanatic and dangerous than Christianity. Being a Jew is an unwholesome title only to a bigot.

You have made a faulty assumption. What you call a real Jew and a real Muslim can also live in peace and harmony. The religious Jews in general were against the Zionist movement. Many still are and wish to have nothing to do with the state of Israel. The state of Israel to them is a creation of man rather than of God, and they wish to have nothing to do with it. There were some living in Palestine when the Zionists started to come in the nineteenth century. They were quite happy to live under Muslim rule and took no part in building up the farms and later the structure of the state. Some of them now support the state, but many of them still don't. The Satmar are an example of those who don't. A group of them even visited Adminejehad in Iran. It is the same among Muslims. The very religious may regard Jihad as a spiritual struggle and are not into terror.

Being very religious does not necessarily correlate with involvement in temporal affairs or a propensity for violence.

And now Nutsinyahoo is telling the world not to approve a free Palestinian state and is dictating to the US to veto such a proposal in the UN.

What a bunch of arrogrant nazi idiots. The US wouldn't dare be seen to allow a Jewish state but not a Palestinian state. That would totally undermine any pretext they had to wanting a just outcome for the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are definately much much cleverer than the Israelis, who cannot seem to be able to see beyond their own selfish greed. The propaganda of the Israelis is now obviously rejected throughout the west and they are looking like grubby little b.....ds.

Keith,

I haven't seen such naivety in ages: taking Netaniahu at face value? if this was an Israeli forum, everyone there would offer to sell you a camel that lays golden eggs. Put yourself in Netaniahu's shoes: of course he HAD to pay this lip-service, he's got a coalition to uphold and support his precious Chair. Do you believe that what this shrewd 2nd-hand car dealer tells the media is the same as what he tells Obama in private? do you think he cares about these matters in the first place? his strategy is to allow peace to happen, taking the credit if possible, without being perceived as responsible for the sacrifices, to be able to say "Poor me, Obama forced it on us and I couldn't help it". One Israeli prime-minister was already murdered on the grounds of being willing for sacrifices, can you blame him for not wanting to be the second?

I didn't like your insult on Israelis: they are such a divided people, with such varied and conflicting ideas and objectives. Smearing them all as if they are one uniform blob can only hurt innocent people and does not serve any positive purpose. You probably didn't even consider for example that some of those "Israelis" are Arab-Israeli citizens!

David,

I think a dividing-line between a real Jew and a Jew-lite is the expectation for the Messiah. Jews may differ about the strategy how to go about bringing him, whether to be patient or active, but all agree that once he arrives he will violently conquer all nations by the sword as well as torture and kill those Jews who fail to follow the commandments.

Perhaps there are a few outstanding individuals who regard Jihad as a spiritual struggle, but they are not commonly tolerated, nor in Judaism, when this Jesus guy suggested something similar about the Messiah's spiritual instead of temporal role, conquering the inner daemons instead of outer enemy-nations, look what they did to him...

Dear Yuyutsu,

Jew-lite is your designation. I had a Jewish mother and father, a Jewish education, belong to a synagogue, identify with the Jewish people and much of my reading is concerned with Jewish history and culture. I am a real Jew. We come in many different shapes, colours and opinions. I am blond and blue-eyed. My cousin married a nice black Jewish girl.

I don't know where you get your ideas about the messiah. Your statement "all agree that once he arrives he will violently conquer all nations by the sword as well as torture and kill those Jews who fail to follow the commandments." is simply nonsense. In my Jewish education I never encountered such ideas. Please tell me your source.

Some branches of Judaism now reject the concept of a personal messiah and have an optimistic faith in the advent of a messianic era with “the unity of all men as the children of God in the confession of the One and Sole God” (Philadelphia program, 1869) or “the establishment of the kingdom of truth, justice and peace” (Pittsburgh program, 1885). We certainly don't all agree.

This Jesus guy was a Jew and much of what he spoke about came from his Jewish heritage. "Love thy neighbour as thyself" comes from the Jewish Bible. Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. A little later our Bible makes it clear that it applies to all - not just Jews. Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

You wrote: "Sorry if what I wrote hurts your feeling of identity - it was meant as a compliment: if all (or almost all) of the inhabitants of the middle-east were like you David, there would be peace there long ago, no doubt."

It was not a compliment. It translates to: "You're ok, but the others are dirty dogs." There are many like me. You insulted them.

Yutusu ha

'Smearing them all as if they are one uniform blob can only hurt innocent people and does not serve any positive purpose.'

Isn't this what the Israelis have been doing to Palenistians for oh about the past 60 years ... and the gentiles for thousands of years?

Those Arabs Israeli's you opportunistically cite are discriminated against in the downright disgraceful fascist Israeli aparthate system.

Don't you dare lecture me! With your bloody nazi-like Gobbels acolyte propagandising you are only digging Israel's hole deeper..

David,

I am still searching for that article that I read based on the Rambam's law-of-kings, explaining that nowadays, even if Rabbis had the power they may only prosecute, beat with a stick and execute in the 4 traditional manners, those Jews that break the commandments in public, but when Messiah comes, he will also prosecute those who offend in private.

Leviticus 19:18 refers to the "Ger" (convert or half-convert who accepts the Noachide laws and Jewish sovereignty), not just any stranger. This is the common rabbinical interpretation: you are much more open-minded (and so was Jesus), so yours is a much better interpretation, yet not the common Jewish one. It is similarly wonderful that some, already in the 19th century, replaced the human-king-warrior concept of Messiah from the dark-side of Judaism with "kingdom of truth, justice and peace”, yet by doing so they broke one of the Rambam's basic and unambiguously-written 13 principles that form the Jewish credo, which you probably recite every morning in the "Yigdal" prayer, followed 3 times a day by the prayer for the human Messiah, "Et Tzemach David Avdecha mehera...".

Once you forsake the dark side of Judaism and embrace your own enlightened ideas, you are no longer a Jew, but what Gideon Levy termed "Jew-lite". Clearly people like you are not dirty dogs, you just sadly fail to see that the group you blindly identify with does not follow your own ideals, and the differences between you and them are much deeper than skin/eye/hair colour.

Keith,

The answer is 'No'.
("Isn't this what the Israelis have been doing to Palenistians for oh about the past 60 years")
some may do it, but:
1) it is only SOME Israelis, not ALL (I start wondering whether you have the capacity to tell the difference); and
2) whatever those Israelis do or don't is not an answer to you doing so here.

Israeli Arabs are actually discriminated in favour in Israel: they are exempt from conscription. This freedom is worth more than anything! (yet they can still do national-service and get first-class privileges if they choose).

Dear Yuyutsu,

Christianity has a very dark side. "The Dark Ages" dated from 380 to about the 17th and 18th centuries. We can date the beginning of the Dark Ages easier than we can its end because a particular event marked its beginning. The beginning was on 27 February 380 when Theodosius declared "Catholic Christianity" the only legitimate imperial religion. "The Closing of the Western Mind" by Freeman tells how the spirit of enquiry that existed in the classical world was criminalised at that point. In 384 Theodosius prohibited haruspicy, the inspection of the entrails of sacrificed animals, on pain of death, and unlike earlier anti-pagan prohibitions, he made non-enforcement of the law, by Magistrates, into a crime itself. Priscillian was the first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy in 385.

Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll tells how the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire changed Christianity to a religion of war and Jew hatred. Then followed a period of great violence as Christianity imposed its religion on most of Europe. With the exception of Ireland this was effected by bloodshed. eg. Charlemagne gave the pagan Gauls the choice between beheading and Christianity. Richard Fletcher wrote "The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386" describing that bloody process.

From Eighteenth Century Europe, page 233

"For the philosophes, Christianity had been an historical disaster, destroying a tradition of civilization in Greece and Rome that had sought to live by reason. In their view the Middle Ages were truly "the Dark Ages." It seemed to them a time when religious myth was the chief source of authority. Medieval learning was dominated by the church and was designed to lead people toward God, while medieval science and historiography were devoted to discovering God's purpose and interventions in the universe. The philosophes felt that it was essential to revitalize these areas of learning, to extrude myth from Western thought and direct it back to reality."

However, I do not call those Christians who are not burning people at the stake Christian-lite.

Dear David,

As I told Keith, blaming a 3rd-party is not an answer.
Many Chrisitians actually, distanced themselves from the Roman-Catholic church: it's true they don't call themselves "Christian-lite", but they use a variety of other names instead to convey that they no longer identify with the church which burned people at the stake.

Probably all religions leave a trail of blood at some stage or another, but what's more important is not the past, but future intentions. Islam has Jihad, and Judaism has the (clearly-human version of) Messiah.

One could possibly remain a real Jew if they drive on the Sabbath (that would merely render them a sinner), but just like "a Christian who does not believe in the Holy Spirit", not if one were to deny any of the basic 13 principles of Judaism - in this case, the faith in and hope for the Messiah arriving any moment, in real history and affecting the whole Middle-East.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Protestants also burned people at the stake. Calvin's Geneva, Massachusetts' Salem and many other Protestant groups murdered people for heresy, being a witch etc. One can distance oneself from the Catholic Church and still follow a Christian religion that has murdered people. Fundamentalist Christians are still murdering people at abortion clinics. Many Christians have an unfortunate tendency to resort to violence. Denis Rohan, an Australian Christian nut set fire to one of the most holy sites in Islam – the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Look up http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/features/rohan/

There is only one statement of faith in Judaism. "Hear, O, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Belief in a messiah is a matter of choice. None of the basic principles are an article of faith. In my Orthodox Jewish education I was never told the messiah was something we had to believe in. Christianity has a multiplicity of creeds that Christians of various denominations subscribe to. I doubt that many Jews in the world today believe in the messiah. My grandmother used to say "When the Messiah comes." By that she meant 'never'.

Future intentions are more important than what has happened in the past. One big reason that there is not peace in the Middle East is "Christians United for Israel." They support the most reactionary aggressive elements is Israeli politics and have poured money in that direction to elect them. In the last US election most of them supported McCain. 80% of American Jews voted for Obama. Look up CUFI on the net.

We have some joyous festivals. On December 11 we will meet to celebrate Chanukah. The last get together was a Scottish night. This will be a Russian night with potato pancakes, savoury meat, salad and doughnuts. There will be tea from the samovar, coffee and Russian punch along with songs and music. At Temple Shalom we are for peace.

Some warlike Jews have fought for Australia. General Monash led the Australian forces in WW1. General Chauvel led the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba. Read about it at http://www.lighthorse.org.au/histbatt/beersheba.htm.

Yuyutsu,

I really don't need you or anbody else to tell me whether I am a Jew or not.

I am a secular humanist with considerable knowledge of Jewish history in particular the history of World War2. It is this history, my heritage, my culture, the way I think and the way I feel that makes me a Jew

Dear David,

So you are a reform-Jew? that's obviously a form of Judaism-lite, trying to select out of Judaism only that which is lovely and humane. That is probably why you never learned about the 13 principles of Judaism, of which the Messiah is #12. I wonder whether your community still includes the prayers for the Messiah in their Siddur (and if so, why)?

Did you know that Real-Jews excommunicate people like you who do not expect the Messiah: See http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/MadaT.html , Chapter 3, item 6?

(note that while the translation says "one that denies that there will be a Redemption", the original Hebrew says "one that denies the coming of the redeemer")

Probably not in Australia, but in Israel (and in Brooklyn) there is a vast number of Jews who totally believe in and hope for the Messiah to arrive. In fact, this is why they settle in the occupied territories, following Rabbi Kook's convoluted method which claims that settlement in all of Eretz-Yisrael hastens the coming of the Messiah.

I don't want to spoil your pancakes, go ahead and enjoy, but did you learn about the meaning of Chanukah? and the true story behind it? The official Jewish position is that there was a successful Jewish rebellion against the Greek because they forbade the observance of the Jewish commandments.
Other historical sources, however, indicate that in fact it was a civil-war, where fanatic-zealot Jews, despite being a minority, won and slaughtered the liberal/secular/humanist Jew-lites who adopted aspects of the Greek empire's life-style. I wouldn't like to celebrate that!

It seems that you (and most of your reform-community) identify with Judaism out of ignorance and habit.
It is no different in principle to siding with a football team, rain or shine, and passing it down the generations without even remembering why.

I am not saying that you should forsake Israel - on the contrary, but realize that Israel is currently held captive by the Jews (the Real-Jews), which bring it misery and shame. I suggest that if you want to fight for Israel, save it from the Jews first!