Debating terminology on Wikipedia's "JEW" article...Conversion/converts/"Jesus" in disguise or what ?
From "Jew" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew
 
(Please see    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License  if you use this material. Thank you. )

Zest asks: How about a section detailing the Beit Din system. Also at least a little section listing the different sects, within Chareidi, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. like for example Chabadnik, Netzarim, Humanistic etc. And since some of these sects are considered apostate by the orthodox, why not also mention the apostate Messianics too? (Before anyone else accuses me of being Messianic, I do NOT believe in any kind of Chstian displacement theology nor do I acknowledge the legitimacy of their so-called divinity G-zus. I am however in favour of absolute neutrality in reportage). Also a little section discussing the steps towards conversion as Bnei Noach, Noachide, (Chassidic Gentiles), Ger Toshav, and the Ger Tzedeq. Zestauferov 18:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC) I just discovered a wiki entry about Talmidi Jews too. It is the first I have ever heard of them! This entry surely is the place to inform the casual reader about which forms of Judaism are considered Jewish and which are considered apostate. Zestauferov 08:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Errr Zestuaf.....it would seem that you are really interested in bringing in "Netzarim" and the subject of "Messianics" who are CHRISTIANS into this discussion. This is NOT the place to have the "stealth tactics" of "Jews for Jesus" (meaning Jews who have become Christians and are therefore APOSTATES To Judaism) in order to promote Christianity over Judaism. There is ample place to talk about Christianity. There is even an entry for Jews for Jesus, so why not go there for discussing "Messianics"?! Why would a section about the Beit Din system help here?? This is an article about Jews as an ETHNICITY, it is not about the religious system, or mechanics, of Judaism which has in any case already been over-stated here when the article discusses "Conversions" by the different denominations. IZAK 20:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Zest says:Right my careless mistake, I wrote the comment here in a rush before I realised that this wasn't the Talk:Judaism section (which in fact already includes a small discussion of sects). So I have moved my comment there and have changed the title. To defend myself on your first point though, I suppose now I have to declare that I can produce documentation from my Orthodox rabbi that I am making Teshuvah from secularisation (reconstructionist) back to orthodoxy and that my Rabbi is in good standing with the Israeli rabbinate he is not a Netzarim and neither am I. I am TOTALLY against chrstian missionaries and am getting actively involved in retrieval of assimilated Jews (are you?). It would be nice if you don't accuse the Orthodox Yemenites of being At-All associated with Jews for J-man (because in accordance with Halakhical requirements the Netzarim Beit Din has been acknowledged as a legitimate orthodox Beit Din by the board of the Orthodox Yemenite Beit K'nêsêt in Raanana, Israel) unless you are claiming more authority than the Beit ha-K'nêsêt Môrêshêt Âvôt (which is recognized by the Israeli rabbinate) are you? What is your position? I just added them to the list out of pure neutrality. Netzarim are real Jews and are not in any kind of state of apostasy -unlike Reform. You aught to get your facts straight before leveling accusations brother :-) You might find these two links helpful to be able to distinguish between Messianic Apostates and Real Netzarim. [1] (
http://www.netzarim.co.il/ConvCtr/Xy/Imposter.htm),[2] (http://www.chayas.com/articles.htm). Netzarim are all anti-missionary onslaught and are one of the the most successful retrieval organisations in the world.
But since you focus on the point I mentioned of Apostate Jews there is a lot about them sprinkled throughout the article but what about pulling these refs together into a little section on Apostate Jews and retrieval programs? All the best and thanks for correcting me IZAK.Zestauferov 12:06, 1 May 2004 (UTC) I just discovered a wiki entry about Talmidi Jews. It is the first I have ever heard of them. Does anyone know for certain if they fit into the apostate category or legitimate category? The links at the bottom of that page make me think perhaps the former. But they may just be bad links. Zestauferov 08:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:Sounds like just another group of Jesus-believing and following Christians, nothing more or less. The "theological" splits between Christian splinter groups is very wide. It's a case of "six of one, and half a dozen of the other"...Still trying to "squeeze in" a group of Jesus-disciples into the "Jew" category is disengenious, as by now, 2,000 years of history makes anyone who follows Jesus into a CHRISTIAN and not a Jew. No theologian would mix and match two religions so determinedly as would a group of proselytizing missionaries hunting "lost Jewish souls". IZAK 09:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Netzarim don't carry out nor encourage conversions, but you are right (I take it you are also grouping muslims as chrstians by your commentZestauferov 03:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)), and I also guess I have to take just criticism in that case. I am no theologian, but I do care very much about "lost souls" when it comes to my family. So I will continue to recommend http://www.netzarim.co.il to any Jewish brothers or sisters being targeted by branches of Messianic Judaism rather than write them off as gone forever. I also care about Those tempted by Reform and Reconstructionism etc. but different approaches are needed. Our major problem is image. Anyway back to the point, how about a "Jews in apostasy" section? Any objections if I write one? All the best Zestauferov 09:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:I have Wikified your subject (Jews in apostasy) and wrote a few words, so write there. There is also ALREADY a Wiki section on apostasy so feel free to enter a "Jewish" section over there too. IZAK 07:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Do you mean it would be too difficult for Reform & Reconstructionists etc. to swallow to e reminded that they are no more practicing legitimate Judaism than are the Messianic Jews? Zestauferov 03:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: IZAK, very dissappointing here to see your lack of objectivity in your accross the board revert. You might check more carefully before you revert all changes like that please. The section on Reform & Reconstructionism views should use the term "interpretations" not Judaism. And since the views of these apostate sects validated only by numbers is mentioned here NPOV demands the apostate messianic views be mentioned too. The description of halakha is wrong. Ger Tzedek is still a non-Jew, there is no term in Halakha for a convert since it is against the law to even remind a convert of their past. Judaism is a culture (ethnicity means culture not race) and though one may reject one's culture (which is called apostasy in Judaism because we believe our culture comes from heaven) just as it is impossible to give up british citizenship no matter how many other times one is naturalized in other countries, the same view is adopted by Halakha on being Jewish. If you don't like the wording fair enough then change it but what I wrote is accurate and informative so I don't understand your reasons for ommitting them. If you are a reform jew you must try to see beyond your interpretations of the world and simply report the facts. You cannot call Messianics apostate without accepting that you are too. Why don't you come on over to more solid ground. All the best. Zestauferov 11:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: You cannot just arbitrarily "decide" what Reform and Reconstructionism "is" or "is not" with the tendentious goal of inserting "Jews for Jesus" as "merely" another group of "apostates". The sections on the non-Orthodox branches were worked out after much work a long time ago, and you risk antagonizing those contributors and editors who had worked on them when this article first went up over a year ago, and I was not involved with that at all, but I have never tampered with those sections, unlike you who seems determined to do so only so that you can get Christian and Messianic sects included in the main discussions here. In the Judaism section there is already a discussion about Jews for Jesus, it doesn't have to come up here. This article is about "ethnic Jews" and IT DOES SAY THAT MANY ETHNIC JEWS HAVE ASSIMILATED AND CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY a number of times. IZAK 14:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Izak, don't get emmotional it does not help matters. And don't hurl abuse in an attemt to get me worked up, it will not work because I am not here to fight and cause trouble. I have already mentioned that I was an agnostic secular Jew and I am making teshuvah to the orthodox way. Thankyou for your comments I am sure they will be well noted. What I am looking for here is objectivity. Perhaps you have never noticed the comment at the bottom of the editing pages "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it." I am not Tampering with anything just excercising my Wiki rights. And when this causes upset then we discuss here on the talk pages in a gentlmanly manner if we are abiding by the wiki policies (that means without terms like tendentious, tampering, using CAPITALIZATION, and refrasing a contributer's comments with a slanting rhetoric -for example I would never use the J word contrary to what your postings seem to infer). There is however one word I have used which I regret. I don't like the term apostate myself (did I bring up that term or did you?) because it means most of my friends and family are apostate (reconstructionist, reform, atheist or other secular "ethnic" Jews). I prefer the term assimilated or better still Ethnic Jews. It is precicely because the article claims to be about Ethnic Jews and includes those who have basically rejected traditional Jewish culture to follow Humanism and yet still call themselves Jews viewing it as a religion (it is not a religion in Halakha, it is only a religion if you are taking the Reform or Reconstructionist POV) are trying to make this entry biased to their perspective by excluding other apostate sects that I think the article still needs some NPOV work on it. If I had my way I would shove all "ethnic Jews" outside Israeli reform (progressive), conservative & orthodox judaism into a section on Assimilated Jews because that is the orthodox stance -albeit put in much more gentle terms. However I am not here to shove my views down everyone's throats, I am only here to say that this article is as of yet far from NPOV and seems to take a heavy Reform stance (excepting Israeli Reform). I realise that Izak obviously considers my edits controvercial and for some reason does not want to accept the had of friendship I have extended to him on his talk page through any reciprocvative response. To each his own I suppose. I have no gripe with him and if I could adjust his accusations into simple statements of fact (which I might do later just to keep this page looking civil & brotherly) then I would agree with the fundamentals of all his points. Anyway to please him and show him that I am not about to start an edit war, I will simply call for NPOV on this matter a little more and if not then I will campaign to get the article labelled with a disputed neutrality notice (in which case I hope that truth and objecitvity will win the campaign not emotional charge). Izak be nice my friend. If race is ethnicity and ethnicity can be religion then your comments are certainly sounding racist, our people have suffered enough abuse and rejection without getting it from other sects of assimilated Jews too. Shalom. Zestauferov 16:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: It seems you are intent on defying "conventional wisdom" here, and want to introduce entirely new methods of "classification" that only you will "understand", as those who have worked on this article over time will take exception. This article does NOT take "Reform" a view. It does state Reform views when they are relevant. As I have said, what has been been written in that regard was not done by me, but I think it is unwise to tamper with what they have written. I have a suggestion to make, why don't you succinctly write HERE in "Jew:TALK" what it is that YOU have in mind first, and then see if it fits anywhere! IZAK 23:20, 11 May 2004 (UTC) Why has user Zestauferov created TWO redundent pages Ethnic Jews and Assimilated Jews as a "response" to the Jew article? User Zestauferov claims on his newly minted Talk:Ethnic Jews and Assimilated Jews (see the related Ger Tzedek): "This page is created in response to the lack of NPOV on the Jew page. Zestauferov 17:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)". See his comments above. IZAK 23:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Ger tzedek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Zest says: IZAK don't be anonymous, you do realize that you have completely reversed the point of view of the original article instead of adding thwe alternative POV?Wiki is not about t4rying to force one POV into domination but to report all of the POVs in a neutral manner.Zestauferov 05:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC):Halakha & Ger Tzedekim.

Simshalom says: You are introducing ERRONEOUS definitions and confusing people. A "Ger" or a "Ger Tzedek" is someone who has become fully and Halachically Jewish 100% because they have undergone "GIUR" ("Conversion) and this is what makes them into a "Ger". "Ger Tzedek" refers to a very "Righteous" convert. One CANNOT be refered to as either a "Ger" or "Ger Tzedek" PRIOR to the actual "day of conversion" when an AUTHORIZED Beit Din accepts the PROSPECTIVE Ger and oversees the Halachic requirements, such as immersion in the Mikveh supervised by that Beth Din. ONLY THEN does the Beit Din ISSUE a "SHTAR GIUR" (Certficate of Conversion) certifying that the former GENTILE (GOY) is now a Jew (Halachik Jew). So to call someone who has NOT immeresed in the Mikveh a "Jew" is incorrect from the point of view of Halacha and any branch of Orthodox Judaism and most Conservative Judaism goes by this procedure. The Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism do not have these standards for conversion to Judaism. The branch of "Netzarim" people, who believe in "Ribi Jesus" are confusing you. Maybe you would enjoy learning at http://www.aish.com/ or http://www.ohr.org.il/ or at http://www.chabad.org/ and you will see that they will all say what I have just told you here. IZAK 19:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: According to what I am learning from the Beit Din I am thinking of practicing in (ask your Rabbi to tell you which one), by making a distinction between one who has become Jewish and one who was born Jewish Izak you and your teachers are breaking halakha. Maybe your Beit Din has a different stance on this. I do not know well about the differences between the beitei Din yet. I have already mentioned that Wiki is not about the battle for one opinion to dominate, but for the neutral expression of the various opinions. Are you not content enough with my leaving the Jew page according to your opinion that you are seeking to silence my Beit Din's position here too? My beit din does not accept any Noahides as genuine unless their intention is to become fully torah observant with the exceptions provided for them within the Torah. The 7 noahide laws are simply a minimum start. Please read http://www.noahide.com/minimum.htm for more details on that. Only those Noahides who cannot become Jewish because for example they are married to a Gentile, or have damaged genitalia, etc. are permitted to remain Ger Tzedek, The word Guir does not mean convert it means proselytize why do you think we never used the word convert with regards to Judaism even in English until recently? You were either as Jew or a Proselyte ("Judaized" non-Jew). That is the traditional stance. I know American Reform movement is trying to promote different views but then so are Messianics, but in the orthodox view there is no difference between these two schools.Zestauferov

Simshalom says:Noahides have NOTHING to do with the question of Halachik conversion according to Orthodox Judaism. They are merely a wonderful group of NON-JEWS (Gentiles) who have decided to follow the "7 Laws of Noah" (they are NOT "converts" and they are NOT "GERIM" or "Ger Tzedek" in any way shape size or form or whatever....). I have not touched on that subject at all, so I don't know why you drag them into this discussion.IZAK 18:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC) Who said anything about "discriminating" between true "Ger" (convert) or "Ger Tzedek" (righteous converts) and a Jew born of a Jewish mother? I am NOT suggesting that Halakha be broken at all. We are having a SCHOLARLY discussion about these issues. It is the Torah that says that "You should love the ger (convert)" (Leviticus, chapter 19, vs.33-34): Is the Torah "discriminating" because it calls a "ger" a "ger"? On the contrary, SOMETIMES it is a high COMPLIMENT in Torah Judaism to call someone a "Ger", such as the famous case of the Vilna Gaon's Count Potocki, who is known as the "Ger Tzedek of Vilna" or the "Ger of Vilna". All throughout classical Torah writings there is mention of those who are a "Ger Tzedek". However, as far as Reform Judaism, they definitely and deliberately "changed" (some would call it "broken") the paramaters and allow even people who do not have a Jewish mother but only have a Jewish father to call themselves "Jews", so they have created a schism that allows people who according to Halakha are NOT Jews to call themselves "Jews".IZAK 18:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC) The term "giur" means the PROCESS of conversion. I am just trying to help you out with correct terminology as you say yourself you are only now begining to learn about HALAKHIC Judaism in depth. IZAK 18:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: P.S. why don't you stop mentioning the name of that "divinity' you like to name so much. It is also against Halakha to do so. I don't want to alienate you, but I do find it unfair that you are trying to give the impression in your posts that I am being misled while I am simply following Halakha while you are the one who has been misled into not following Halakha. Please consider the nature of the ground you are standing upon friend. Zestauferov 06:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: What "Halakha" are you "following" if you call someone who has NOT completed the process of conversion yet, and is Halakhically a complete Gentile, a "Ger" or "Ger Tzedek"? IZAK 18:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Circumcision is a prerequisite of becomming a Jew (for men, I think you may be right that Ruth was just a Ger Tzedek -I have to get confirmation- since one can be a Jew if you are the son of at least a Ger Tzedek female & a male Jew). Read the Torah. I have heard that some Beitei din even insist that one who has already been circumcised must have a symbolic nic in the forskin or even be re-circumcised if possible. You wrote it yourself, Mikhvah is the final requirement for a Ger Tzedek or Proselyte and not circumcision. Zestauferov 06:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:FIRST comes the circumcision ( and yes, if the converting gentile did have it done earlier it must now be done symbolically with just a drop of blood drawn, known as hatafat dam brit), and then the FINAL STEP is the immersion in the waters of the mikveh, as far as I know. Why would you think that a man can "skip" brit mila (the required circumcison of conversion), and fancy to call himself a Halakhic "Jew" by merely going into a mikveh? That sounds really too much like Christianity which merely requires "baptism". Judaism is not some sort of "eloborate Baptist religion". I highly recommend you purchase a copy of BECOMING A JEW By (Orthodox) Rabbi Maurice Lamm. (Jonatahn David Publisheers) Get it at your local Judaica store or online at either Barnes&Noble: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.aspuserid=BQv1PKPx8K&isbn=0824603508&itm=1 or at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0824603508/103-5616073-8653426v=glance IZAK 18:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Here is an online reference from one of the communities I respect most http://www.chayas.com/ger.htm You will see that this is not a netzarim site at all and that my POV is certainly valid. I hope you will do something about reverting your very strong suppression of my POV considereing the facts presented. If not I will do it myself, I will try not to show a bias. All the best.Zestauferov 15:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on Netzarim

Zest says: This section of the discussion does not belong here it has been moved following no objection to the Talk:Nazarene Judaism page. Zestauferov 11:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

FFW says: I've removed the link and incorporated the material into the article to give some context. JFW T@lk 20:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Discussion Moved from Ger Tzedek

Zest says: Background: Zestauferov plays devil's advocate, Izak enacts the prosecution.
The Question: Do Netzarim follow Halakha?

Simshalom says: Had I known you work for the "devil" I would have worn a "fire-suit" (as if that could help). Futhermore, I did NOT agree to come to this page, as I am not interested in debating the pros and cons of "shades" of "Messianic judo-ism". You seem to want to "burn the candle at both ends": Debating (disguised) Christianity with (confused) Jews, and (fake) Judaism with pseudo-Christians. Hmmmmm. IZAK 05:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: I am not the one who brought this discussion to this point I am only the one who moved it here where it belongs. I was talking about Ger Tzedek and halakha.Zestauferov 10:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:I am merely calling "a spade a spade". Would you feel better if I talked about "Yeshu HaNotzri"? I have never heard Torah Jews refer to him as "Ribi Yehoshua" either as some Messianic cults try to "Judaize" him so that ignorant ("assimilated" in your parlance) Jews will be "fooled" into thinking that he was just another "regular rabbi", a respectable "member of the tribe", which is a lie as he was rejected by all the rabbis of his time and since. If you don't like "Jesus" so why are you so dedicated to the "netzarim"? I don't get it, I must be missing something here I guess.IZAK 18:45, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Yeshu Ha Notzri was a late 2nd Century early 1st century BCE apostate contemporary with Yoshua Ben Parachiah. I use to think they were the same person until it was pointed out to me that to think this way is to insult the chronological skills of the compilers of the Mishnah. Are you next going to say that he was also the early late 1st early 2nd century CE Plony Ben Stada? then that would make his life span accross 4 centuries!! There are no jewish records about Ribi Yehoshua Ben Joseph just as there are no records about any other minor Beth Hillel rabbis of the early days. Can you show me the line of Halakha where it says "A Jew must hate and dispise anything remotely connected to the coenter of Chrstian devotion" please? If there is rest assured I will hate him more than you, and speak out against them, but if there isn't I am just as puzzled about your negative stance as you are about my trollerant stance. Let them be as long as they are bringing Jews into orthodoxy. All the best. Zestauferov 02:17, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: I am not sure who the people are that are "pointing out" things to you, but they sound like a pretty wierd bunch of folks to me. I have met many great genuine rabbis in my lifetime, and never have I heard the kind of things you seem to be exposing yourself to. Maybe it's time to find teachers who are more "mainstream" and not so focused in the "netzarim" folks who really appear to be way out in "left field" both according to Judaism AND Christianity (and as they say: "self praise is NO recommendation"). As for the "compilers" of the Mishneh, they were NOT concerened with "chronology" the way modern western academics are. The Torah SheBeal Peh (Oral Law) and indeed the Torah SheBichtav (Written Torah), deal with personalities and events within their own unique methodologies of "time" and one would have to spend many years in a good yeshiva getting acquainted with exactly how the Mishna "placed" people in time and space. They did NOT work under the asssumption that they must have a "sense of history" as it is understood in the secular world today. There was so much persecution of Jews by Christians, especially since it was the Jews' arch-enemy: ROME that "adopted" Jesus' "faith" that the combination of factors working against traditional Torah Judaism, made it imperative that Judaism's views of Jesus (whichever one he is, take your pick) be cloaked in deliberate ambiguity and "plausible deniability". IZAK 20:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: This looks like you are saying that the life of the historical person in question was chopped up into several sections, given different names then thrown in amongst stories of different rabbis over the course of 4 centuries (or 8 in the case of the Toledoth Yeshu). This explains how in the case of Eliazer he sometimes appears as a man with disciples and at another time as a young boy. Interesting idea do you have any reference for this or is it just your own opinion? If you have a reference it would be good to add this synopsis to a Toldoth Yeshu article. Zestauferov 03:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: The kind of "references" you seek are not necessary, as there is NOTHING in Torah scholarship that will cast positive light on Jesus-Yeshu (and/or anyone like him). He may even never have existed, but the fact that there is a world-wide religion called "Christianity" (in all its stripes and stages) that has always been hostile to Jews and Judaism, especially as espoused by Orthodox Judaism, throughout two millenia of history is enough "evidence" that Jesus=Yeshu was and remains "bad news" for the Jews. Reputable rabbis and scholars IGNORE him as he is persona non grata and the myriad movements he spawned are "RADIOACTIVE" as far as Torah-true Judaism is concerned. IZAK 18:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC) The bottom line is, that you CANNOT have it both ways, even tho' groups like "netzarim" or "Jews for Jesus" types may want to foist the false idea that somehow one "can have one's cake and eat it"...it just ain't so according to any major Torah and Jewish thinkers. Either you are Jewish (Halachicaly) or you are Christian. One precludes and excludes the other, no matter how much the "Netzarim" types jump up and down or stand on their heads (as they even stand logic on its head) IZAK 20:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: I understand your point which you have already made very clearly several times over i.e. "You can't be ANY kind of "Cristian" and be Jewish (in the religious sense) simultaneously" I would expand it somewhat and say You can't be anything but Jewish in the traditional religious sense and be Jewish in any religious sense simultaneously. But opinion is not useful at all. I have asked "Can you show me the line of Halakha where it says "A Jew must hate and dispise anything remotely connected to the center of Chrstian devotion" please?" This would be very useful. What if careful analysis of evidence suggested that Siddarta Guatema might have been a minor unknown Jewish teacher amongst the Jews exiled in the east by Babylon? Same question different content would apply. What if Mohammed turned out to be a Ger Tzedek whose story has been corrupted by political factions? As far as I can see the netzarim are not following the person you think they are following They are following Halakha and put the Reform movement to shame in that respect. Is it this that is annoying you? Zestauferov 03:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Don't let your imagination run amock! You say: "...I have asked 'Can you show me the line of Halakha where it says 'A Jew must hate and dispise anything remotely connected to the center of Chrstian devotion' please?' This would be very useful...". Your question reveals your lack of insight into what Halacha is about. Halacha is not here to teach you to "hate" anything. It is not a program or "dogma" of "emotional reactions" as people may erroneously think.

Zest says: No Izak, I know this very well, I was simply wondering if you realised this. I suppose I set myself up for that stab though. Serves me rightZestauferov 11:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: (Sadly the "Koran" does incite its readers and that is one reason why Islam has always been so dangerous as it is so "emotion" based.) Instead, the Halacha is here to help people BECOME BETTER JEWS and human beings (you know, like that line the Christians stole of "love thy friend as thyself" Leviticus, 19:18). I would say it is very simple: The Torah FORBIDS following anyone who is deemed to be a Navi Sheker (a "False (Liar) (so-called) Prophet"): ...if a prophet presumptiously makes a declaration in My name when I have not commanded him to do so, or if he speaks in the name of other gods, then that prophet shall die... (Deuteronomy, 18:20). The Torah urges us in the Ten Commandments to worship only the One true God and NOT to have any other FALSE Gods or idols! IZAK 18:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Very good, thankyou. I know the passage of course, but I don't know what your evidence is for infering the Netzarim worship idols etc., and that their Ribi Yehoshua Ben Joseph was a Navi Sheker. Which sources are you establishing your beliefs upon? Zestauferov 11:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: It's not just "idols" per se, it's any "belief-system" that is not part of the Mesorah (authentic tradition) of Torah Judaism as it has been sanctioned by the Torah sages of ALL generations, and none have sanctioned or even taken note of "Ribi what's-his-name". "Ribi Yehoshua" could also be classified as a Meisis Umediach: 13:7 [This is what you must do] if your blood brother, your son, your daughter, your bosom wife, or your closest friend secretly tries to act as a missionary among you, and says, 'Let us go worship a new god. Let us have a spiritual experience previously unknown by you or your fathers.' 13:8 [He may be enticing you with] the gods of the nations around you, far or near, or those that are found at one end of the world or another. 13:9 Do not agree with him, and do not listen to him. Do not let your eyes pity him, do not show him any mercy, and do not try to cover up for him, 13:10 since you must be the one to put him to death. Your hand must be the first against him to kill him, followed by the hands of the other people. 13:11 Pelt him to death with stones, since he has tried to make you abandon God your Lord, who brought you out of the slave house that was Egypt. 13:12 When all Israel hears about it, they will be afraid, and they will never again do such an evil thing among you.(Deuteronomy, 13:7-12) IZAK 21:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: Another very useful reference thankyou Izak. But still it would be useful for you to provide which sources are you establishing your beliefs that he could be a Navi Sheker, and/or Meisis Umediach upon? All the best. Zestauferov 01:59, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: I have just provided you with the best sources available from the Torah, do you doubt that ANY Torah-true (Orthodox) Talmidei Chachamim (Torah Scholars) and even those who follow non-Orthodox Judaism have any doubts whatsoever that "Ribi Yeshoshua" aka Jesus was NOT either a "Navi Sheker, and/or Meisis Umediach"? C'mon now, what are you expecting from "Halacha", a "clear statement" about him? Do you think that they were THAT stupid, self-destructive or suicidal? Every time a Jew was thrown to the lions in the name of "Yeshu" or ripped apart by a Crusader, that Jew knew who was to blame: Your wonderful "Ribbi Yehoshua" who had incited the WORLD against his own people (see his words in the "New Testament"). Add "traitor" to his resum`e. IZAK 05:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: The Torah is indeed the best thing one can reference to, but it is like talking about what to do with bad apples without showing your evidence that an apple in question is bad. However, the last part of your posting clinches it for me. "Your wonderful "Ribbi Yehoshua" who had incited the WORLD against his own people (see his words in the "New Testament"). Add "traitor" to his resum`e." You are basing your beliefs upon the "NT"?? Don't you know there is halakha against that? Don't you know about the people who compiled and edited it? "Every time a Jew was thrown to the lions in the name of "Yeshu" or ripped apart by a Crusader, that Jew knew who was to blame" If you had just left it at this I might be more satisfied but for the fact that Jews have been persecuted from the beginning. It has plenty to do with hate for the truth and very little to do with anything much else. This is why I am interested in the truth surrounding a subject and will not allow myself to get worked up to the state where I become just as much an enemy to the truth as those who wished to silence us over the years have. The persecution of the Jews is equivalent to censorship, and that is the example you are copying by not trying to through the tears of many years. Oh, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, I am not a Netzarim! I am simply interested in truth. My personal belief is that the events described in the Mishna are true. Yeshu Ha Notzri is nobody and was simply too early to be anyone, though I am pretty sure the chrstians created their religion by mixing up things they heard about him with that of Yeshu Pandera who is mentioned ONLY in Tofseta Hullin 2:22,23,24 and that Yeshu Pandera is probably the true historical identity. I believe this same Pandera may have been the biological father or uncle of the mamzer heretic known as Ben Stada. I have heard that even Chrstian historians record that the family name of the man they worship's grandfather was something like Pandera. Rabi Eliazer seemed impressed by a certain Jacob Kefar who was a student of this Pandera. The authorities at the time and Rabbi Ishmael on the other hand seem to have been against him. Since the authorities at the time were dominated by Beth Shammai (who even rejected Shammai!), Herodians and Helenized Roman-conspirator pseudo-Zadokites, I see no reason why I should consider either these or Pandera to be any better than each other. I do however like Rabbi Eliazer, so maybe there was a certain Jacob Kefar who could heal who was a disciple of a Ribi who may have been a good man but who was also certainly unpopular with the authorities because of his outspokeness, and who may have been an uncle/ancestor of the mamzer heretic Ben Stada. As for the messiah? I believe, with perfect faith, in the coming of the Messiah, and though he may tarry, I wait, through each and every day, for his coming. Shalom. Zestauferov 10:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: No-one serious about Torah-true Judaism makes a "study" of "Mr.Ribi/Yeshu/Pandera/What's-his-face/etc" as you seem so intent on doing. As I told you, the guy has been "blotted out" of the Jewish lexicon, and the less said the better. (I have already said too much and cannot add much more). I mentioned the "New Testament" as those are the writings that purport to speak for him, regardless of your feelings, they are unkind to Jews, period. You claim to be searching for the truth. What that "truth" is, is hard to know for those trying to decipher your statements, as you make so many contradictory declarations and citations that it's hard to tell "top" from "bottom". One day it's this, the next day it's that, and so on and so forth etc ad nauseum. Take it easy. IZAK 23:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: Zestauferov, whenever the Ribi lived, it was after the "official" cessation of prophecy with Haggai, Zecharya and Malachi. It is impossible to say whether he was a prophet as far as Judaism is concerned, and (hence) it cannot be "falsified" either. The fact is that the Netzarim are on the verge of discrediting their beliefs by attaching importance to a man who (in their eyes in a caricature) has come to mean so much to a billion christians. What does his theology have to offer to the Netzarim that cannot be found in the body of B'nei Noach ideology?

Zest says: Very well said indeed.Zestauferov 17:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: At any rate, they deserve treatment by themselves in the Nazarene Judaism article, and material pertaining to the Netzarim does not belong in Ger Tzedek or Noahide Law. Nazarene Judaism is not a halachically valid option for B'nei Noach as far as most rabbinic authorities are concerned. JFW T@lk 12:46, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: "and material pertaining to the Netzarim does not belong in Ger Tzedek or Noahide Law"

zest says: Why not? Is it because "Nazarene Judaism is not a halachically valid option for B'nei Noach as far as most rabbinic authorities are concerned."

Zest says: Does that mean there are some rabinic authorities which do cosider it valid?
And does this matter anyway? Are Noahides required to follow Halakha?Zestauferov 17:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: Zestauferov, I take strong issue with your habit of cutting up peoples' responses. It makes my response look fragmentary and spaced in time, while it is supposed to be a coherent whole. You might prefer to copy&paste relevant quotes and italicise them, rather then endless indentations interspersed with a message's body. I can agree with "netzarim" and similar groups being mentioned on the Ger Tzedek or Noahide Law, but with a clear disclaimer that these groups are not considered by Orthodox Judaism to belong in either category. Indeed, the "netzarim beit din" like to tell us that some Yemenite congegation has endorsed them, and that this provides them with legitimacy. Some rabbinic authority must have authorised this (hopefully that community's own rabbi). Nonetheless, this does not promote their cause much. I think more ASCII has been spilt on this peripheral subject than there are members to Nazarene Judaism. User:IZAK is correct that present orthodox leaders are not (and probably will not) approve of belief in Ribi Yehoshua, for whatever reason. That ends the matter. JFW T@lk 00:08, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: "Zestauferov, I take strong issue with your habit of cutting up peoples' responses. It makes my response look fragmentary and spaced in time, while it is supposed to be a coherent whole. You might prefer to copy&paste relevant quotes and italicise them, rather then endless indentations interspersed with a message's body." JFW

Zest says: I did as you have described above, I only interupted once to express agreement. Have I done this before? I am sorry my agreement upset you so much friend. Even so interspersing a posting meant to be a cohesive whole is not forbidden in wiki. Please remember If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit itZestauferov 05:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
As for Halakha, I have discovered that there is nothing wrong with any Noahide accepting "Ribi Yehoshua" as a teacher or even a prophet as long as they 1) do not force others to accept him. 2) Emphasise the distinction that he is not the same as any divinity worshipped alongside Ha-Shem. The orthodox authorities do not reject any Noahide's belief in any prophets. I have also confirmed that the Muslims are also Noahides, and that there is nothing wrong with them accepting Muhammad as a prophet (though they may be wrong) as long as they do not force jews to accept the same belief. Thus your request for a "clear disclaimer that these groups are not considered by Orthodox Judaism to belong in either category" would infact express an inaccurate POV. All the best Zestauferov 05:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: interspersing a posting meant to be a cohesive whole is not forbidden in wiki - no, but it might be polite. Please do not interpret my rant as a personal attack. I find this debate much too amusing and fascinating to let it be spoiled by formatting issues.
You are right that acceptance of Ribi Yehoshua as a prophet is not a sin for a Noachide. My only point in the previous posting is, that it will be mighty difficult for a Ribi-Yeshoshua-believing sect to claim legitimacy with the orthodox Jewish framework, as most halachic authorities will be uneasy about lending credence to a movement centered around Jesus, even if he's not considered a god.
I have also stated above that Noachides do not need approval from orthodox authorities. However, if they want this approval, then belief in Ribi Yehoshua and his teachings can be a major obstacle.
Therefore, I think this disclaimer is not POV at all - a Ger Tzedek is a full convert to Judaism, something the Nazarenes are not. They keep the Noahide Laws, and perhaps a disclaimer is not necessary in the latter article. JFW T@lk 11:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: I wonder if we are talking about the same people here? http://netzarim.co.il ? I ask because in two posts you mention that they cannot be Jews. But they exist already within the Yemenite Jewish community, and they do not accept anyone into their Beth Din unless they are already Orthodox Jews. Are you saying an orthodox Jew is not a full Jew? Maybe I missed your point. Please forgive me, could you try to explain again? :-) I have also found an online reference for the POV I expressed on Ger Tzedek earlier so I am putting that link in that article.Zestauferov 15:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: I have seen the http://www.netzarim.co.il site. It seems to be the primary outlet of Netzarim ideology. It turns whackier with every line I read, and the petty puritanist insistence on correct pronunciation and etymology is nauseating. The Paqid Yirmiyahu ben-David could do a lot better than that. They do not exist within the Yemenite community - they claim to have an endorsement from that community's board. Otherwise their house of worship is modeled after (and run like) one of the Yemenite community. I had not realised that the Netzarim also aim to attract Orthodox Jews - an oversight on my part but an important point. Again I cannot stress enough that the unofficial endorsements do not put this strange community within the framework of Orthodox Judaism. No orthodox rabbinic authority will speak out and say that it's OK to pray in the house of worship of a community that maintains that Jesus/Ribi Yehoshua was the Messiah! This said, I'm having growing doubts whether this stuff is encyclopedic at all. We're talking about a very small group of people whose only hallmark is that they claim to be orthodox Jews while celebrating "The historical figure behind Jesus" as the messiah. JFW T@lk 20:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Request for information

Seglea asks: Could those editing this page please provide some more information to help less expert readers? The phrase "the Nazaraeans/Nasoraeans Theodoret described" is useless without a link to Theodoret, which we don't have. Either we need a short article on him/her, or we need a one-line explanation of who s/he is/was. Is the "Jochanan the immerser" referred to John the Baptist, or at any rate a figure otherwise known who is held to be the origin of that New Testament figure? If so, we need a link and perhaps a brief word of explanation. Thanks. seglea 18:05, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: John is the English version of the Hebrew name Yochanan (or Jochanan). We can safely assume that we're dealing with the same immerser here.
I've got no idea who Theodoret is, but when Googling for the name, the second site is the Wikipedia article on Theodoret. (See also the entry in the Catholic encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14574b.htm)). He appears to have been involved in a Nastorean controversy, and the author of this article is probably referring to that event. JFW T@lk 20:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

seglea says: Thanks, JFW. I'm sorry I missed our Theodoret page - I realise now that I misspelled him when I searched for him. I have to say that I share your doubts about whether this material is encyclopaedic. It is deeply obscure to me, as a reader from outside whatever world those writing it (or those who are being written about) are in - so obscure that I can't even tell what world that is; which makes me suspect that I'd find it highly POV if I could only discern what its POV was!
I guess that criticism begs the question of what would make it more encyclopaedic. Well, it would be nice to have some basic information about the size and geographical spread of these groups - are we dealing with hundreds of people or millions, and where might we meet them? - and how their beliefs are derived - are they constructing a new (Jewish?) interpretation of the New Testament, using existing traditions about the NT (and if so where do those come from, and what evidence are they based on?), relying on other ancient documents (which?) - etc. And it all needs to be written in a language and style that isn't a concealed attempt to rubbish anyone else's belief system, whether that's Jewish, Christian, or anything else. seglea 06:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW says: I share all your concerns, and a lot more NPOV should go into this article. Basically, all these groups are still Jesus-centered but claim to be Jewish. They do not subscribe to Jesus' divinity, only to his rabbinic and Messianistic role (failing to explain why there's no world peace yet). They are a bit closer to Judaism than adherents of Messianic Judaism but cannot in any form be considered mainstream Jews, however much legitimacy is claimed. Numbers are probably under 10,000 worldwide, but the website of the Netzarim doesn't provide us with these stats. JFW T@lk 12:42, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree, and
"failing to explain why there's no world peace yet"
that is the Key point isn't it? All these messianic groups whether it be centered around Menachem Mendel Schneerson, or Ribi Jehoshua, or anyone on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Other_Jewish_people_purported_to_be_messiahs the fact that the messianic era has obviously not begun yet needs to be addressed by any such group. But do we find any such explanations offered anywhere? All I have seen is a lot of deflection.

Zest says: In answer to one of your questions, I know that they consider the Testaments of the Evangelists and other such writings to be nothing more than historical documents no better or worse than any of the early chrstian writings, and apply a scientific method in deducing which texts might hold the most accurate information. I think that they consider the reconstructed Hebrew Matthew pretty trustworthy but do not consider any of these texts to be from HaShem. With these writings then then simply read to understand them from the orthodox Jewish paradigm. Thus the immerser simply becomes a Matbil. Ribi Jehoshua's teachings simply identify him as a Beth Hillel Ribi, etc. etc. Quite interesting actually, if only they dropped the messiah belief their research might be taken more seriously. Zestauferov 13:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC) I have done some further reading on the subject and I have discovered that there are several "Nazarene" sects all with very similar names but not all identicle. I suggest that this page be merged with Nazarene and that each of the sects is clearly disambiguated with a summary of their respective beliefs. It also seems as it stands, like some of the info on this page is inaccurate. Zestauferov 09:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

About an external link

Jmabel says: I had added a link Jay Sand's site about African Jews also contains information about various small Jewish diasporas elsewhere (http://www.mindspring.com/~jaypsand/index.htm). IZAK removed it, remarking, "These groups are mentioned in the body of the article. They are very minor. Is this now going to become a place where all those claiming to be from the "Ten Lost Tribes" can register as Jews=General=) IZAK, did you even examine the site whose link you are deleting? It has information on several groups of undoubted ethnic Jews not mentioned in the article (in Sao Tome and Principe and Cape Verde, for example), discusses everything from the (white) Jews of South Africa to the Jews of Morocco and Tunisia; it gives information on several Jewish communites (e.g. Mozambique that have been forced into exile in the last generation); also, as my comment indicates, it extends beyond Africa to give a good rundown on small Jewish comunities in Asia and Latin America. Three or four of the groups covered are, indeed, groups with dubious claims as "lost tribes", and the site makes that clear, but most are simply small, isolated groups of ethnic Jews, some of them still Jewish by religion, others not. I think this is perfectly relevant to this article. I picked it partly because, unlike similar sites about one or another community, it discusses over twenty countries (about half of them in Africa). Unless you can give me an argument that at least indicates that you have actually looked at the material on the site, I see no reason to accept your deletion and will restore the link. So as to avoid an edit war, I'll hold off at least 24 hours to give you time to respond. -- Jmabel 23:19, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Actually, this is related to the above item: [Too many external links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jew#Too_many_external_links)] where someone "in the know" advised that ten external links is enough, and we now have many more than that as it is, even after I had trimmed many interesting links. As for the "Jews of Africa etc", yes I looked at your link and I am familiar with some of its contents. If we are now going to "dig up" any entity of people who claim to be Jews then the list will never end as you will find such groups on all continents. Between the "Lost Tribes" and the "Jew envy" (in those cases where Jews were not being killed out, of course) accumulated over thousands of years there are thousands of groups claiming to be connected to the Jews. Then add in those larger groups such as the Pashtuns, Mormons, and even those who want to say that the Japanese are descended from the Jews' lost tribes the sum of it all is that being "Jewish" loses any meaning in any sense. Furthermore, there could be legitimate links tagged on (but shouldn't be, in my opinion as it will then just be a page of "links" to "Jews" then), that could be added about organized conventional communities in all countries with Jews that would fit even in the Halakhic sense, meaning Jews of Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Turkey, Spain, England, Brazil, Paraguay, Mexico, Norway, Italy, Canada, Ukraine, Serbia, Greece, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ....and it will never end if you go about it this way, unless you want to start actual Wiki articles on each of these which is perfectly fine. So we have to work within some sort of bounds, without "falling off the deep end" thereby making this article so broadly-defined that it becomes "meaningless" to be Jewish! IZAK 01:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel says: As far as I can tell, only about 4 of the 20 or so groups on that site are questionable in terms of Halakha. Right now, about half the external links from this article are about Judaism, not about Jewish ethnicity, the ostensible topic of the article. Jay Sand's is precisely a site about Jewish ethnicity, and only secondly about the religion. I would think it is far more relevant than the bulk of the links here, which really belong on the Judaism page. And I have written articles about several of the smaller Jewish (and dubiously Jewish) groups. For whatever it's worth, just sticking within your list, the article discusses the Jews of Morocco, Yemen, Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico. -- Jmabel 06:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: As the article makes clear it is virtually impossible to create a clear dichotomy between being a "Jew" and "Judaism" as the two are inextricably intertwined and only a complete fool would attempt to go with a "working assumption" that somehow it is possible to create an absolute differentiation between a "Jew" and "Judaism". "Judaism" defines who is a "Jew" as much as a "Jew" is a product of "Judaism". One cannot grasp the one without the other. The selection of the word "ethnicity" is NOT from Judaism (and I did not pick it as I was not around when this article was first written). It is an arbitrary word from the secular world using an English word (actually from the GREEK ethnikos and ethnos meaning "nation"), to somehow describe and explain Jews as a people in history and in the present. It just so happens to be that for the bulk of their history for over 3,300 years Jews and Judaism, as measured and expressed in the Torah, were indistinguishable. Over the past three hundred years growing secularization has watered down the Jews' ability to define and recognize themsleves, as new secular words and nomenclature, such as "ethnicity", "secular", "liberal", "humanist", etc struggle to arrive at any consenus whatsoever, which is why this article causes so much consternation as a "Wiki" article, working under the isufficient notion that "Jews" and "Judaism" can be "squeezed into" a "secular encyclopedia", which of course it can't be at all. It's like trying to squeeze God into a "Genie bottle" and expect a little intellectual "rub" to grant "enlightenment" on what is essentialy a complex issue ROOTED in theology, belief, spirituality, and religious identity. IZAK 23:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest says: There is a very big meaning in laying claim to being ethnically Jewish Izak and that is laying claim to the obligation to do ones best to practice one's traditional culture perfectly. Even so this article is about the Jews as an "Ethnicity" not about the religion/culture (which are still both ethnicity), so we might as well cover all the wonderful diversity in that label. Personally with regards to identifying lost tribes, I think that is a Job for the orthodox rabbis to decide based upon evidence presented to them. If we do not accept the orthodox definition of ethnic Jew then any group with large enough numbers can claim to be ethnically jewish and their claim will carry some clout. I think the problem here is the meaning of the word Ethnicity. Judaism IS an ethnicity, however many who do not practice Judaism (there is only one Judaism) still want to call themselves "ethnically" Jewish just because they have some physical descent from a Jew, or even just because they like Latkes & Klezmer. What this article should try to do is describe the levels of Jewish ethnic intensity gauged against Chareidi as the most ethnically Jewish and people who just like latkes in winter (for example) as the least.Zestauferov 09:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: "Zest, Enjoy your latkes!" (have doubles whilst you're about it)! IZAK 23:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


- posted by Izak @ 7:39 PM (1) comments

 
Prominent U.S. Jews, Israel blamed for start of Iraq war
By Nathan Guttman
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/433224.html

WASHINGTON - As the argument in the United States over the necessity of the war in Iraq and the manner in which it was waged intensifies, and as the presidential election date draws nearer, those who have tried to accuse Israel or the U.S. Jews of pushing the administration into battle are once again sounding their voices. In the American Jewish community, they warn it could get worse.

The most blatant example in recent weeks was an article written by veteran Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (Dem.-South Carolina), who charged in an article published in a Charleston newspaper at the beginning of the month that behind the decision to go to war was "President Bush's policy to secure Israel."

In his article, Hollings mentions the names of three prominent Jews, from the neoconservative stream in the administration, as those responsible for pushing for the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Two weeks later, Hollings stepped up to the podium in the Senate and delivered an emotional address in which he defended his statements, attacking the Jewish establishment and repeating the main thrust of his claims.

Hollings has been the most outspoken U.S. official against the alleged Israeli-Jewish connection to the war; but a week ago, the issue was also picked up by retired general Anthony Zinni, a well-known and esteemed figure from the center of the American political spectrum.

In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," Zinni, who, with Tom Clancy, is about to publish a book in which he harshly criticizes the war and Bush's team, said there were a number of neoconservatives who had promoted the idea of the war in Iraq with the purpose, among others, of "strengthening the position of Israel."

Zinni mentioned the names of five representatives of the neoconservative stream - all of them Jewish. He did say, however, that the religious or ethnic affiliations of the members of the administration were of no bearing on the matter.

Despite the significant difference between the statements of Zinni and those of Hollings, certain members of the U.S. Jewish community are beginning to feel a little uncomfortable.

"The fact is that this claim is out there," says the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, on the charge that the Jews and supporters of Israel were the ones who pushed the U.S. into the war. "We were pointed out at the beginning, and it's easier to blame us when things go bad," he adds.

The claims about the Jewish-Israeli link to the war were raised even before they were voiced by extreme right-wing spokespersons such as Pat Buchanan and Democratic Congressman Jim Moran, who found himself having to apologize for saying that without the Jewish community's strong support, the U.S. would not have gone to war in Iraq.

Foxman says the charges are being voiced anew because the argument over the war is heating up. "We knew that if things went wrong, they will look for someone to blame," he says. "The more protest, the more politicizing of the issue, people will be sloppier and will not be careful in what they say."

But the link between Israel and the war in Iraq espoused by Hollings is not the only one. More voices are making the connection from a different direction, charging that the only solution to the embroilment in Iraq is a more intensive approach toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Last week, in an article by Nicolas Kristof in the New York Times, Zinni was reported to have said that he had been surprised to hear from members of the administration that the advantage of the war in Iraq is that "the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad."

According to Zinni, "The opposite is true; the road to Baghdad leads through Jerusalem. If you were to solve the Middle East peace process, you'd be surprised what kind of other things work out."

Similar sentiments were expressed by Anthony Cordesman, one of the most highly regarded academics on the Iraq issue, in an article in the Baltimore Sun a week ago. The first step toward fixing America's status in the Arab world must be "steady and visible U.S. pressure ... on [the Israeli and Palestinian] governments," Cordesman wrote, while urging the U.S. administration to make a concerted effort to stop Israeli settlement activity.
- posted by Izak @ 7:20 PM (0) comments

 
One Million Jewish Adult Singles in Israel (out of almost 6 million Jews)
Danger Signs In Nation Of Singles

Growing numbers in Israel seen not just as a social issue but a matter of survival.

By Gary Rosenblatt - Editor and Publisher Gary@jewishweek.org
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9490

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9490

Suddenly, it seems, the increasing numbers of Jewish singles are gaining attention, from demographers warning of our shrinking numbers, to entrepreneurs pushing JDate and a host of other dating Web sites and matchmaking services, to psychologists worrying that today’s young people are being unrealistically demanding in choosing a mate.

While there are as many reasons for people being single as there are single people, the subtext of the communal concern is that the Jewish world simply will not survive if Jews don’t marry and have children. Nowhere is the issue more pointed than in Israel, where demographics has such a direct impact on political policy and where leaders worry that Jews will become a minority in their own country.

What astounds even government officials there, though, is the fact that

one out of every three adult Israelis is single — about 1 million people, comprising 45 percent of the Jewish men and 37 percent of the women between the ages of 20 and 44, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics. Approximately 400,000 of those people are 25 or older.

“I was amazed,” acknowledges Ephraim Lapid, director of public affairs for the Jewish Agency for Israel. He says the issue of singles should be a top priority of the Jewish agenda, but “no one cares enough.”

A rare exception, he notes, is Liaura Zacharie, who in 1995 created a Jerusalem-based not-for-profit organization called Eden 2000 (www.eden2000.org.il), which seeks to deal with singles on a national as well as personal level, not only helping people meet through social events, but promoting marriage as a means of revitalizing aliyah, strengthening the society and improving the country’s economic condition.

That’s a tall order, but “she has great vision and commitment,” Lapid says of Zacharie, a native of France who was educated at Stern College in New York before settling in Israel nearly 20 years ago.

Zacharie, in her charming French accent, says that “Jewish communities around the world make a mistake by addressing Jewish continuity only through education. It should be based on romance and on having babies.”

Romance, she adds, requires social skills, asserting that while society trains citizens in science, health and technology, not enough is done in the art of establishing higher quality relationships so that people can find happiness.

“People today want intimacy and growth and don’t know how to acquire them,” Zacharie says.

Her goal is to have Israel emulate Singapore, establishing a government-run singles program to promote marriage, family and social relationships on a national scale. Zacharie has been to Singapore to see firsthand how the government has worked for more than a decade to advocate for marriage and family in a culture where remaining single was perceived as a preference for many.

Public relations campaigns stressed that married people tend to be healthier, wealthier, less prone to violence and more productive workers, she said. As part of the national effort, large companies set up internal matchmaking companies, and billboards and educational materials urged people to “make an informed choice,” according to Zacharie.

Israel already is one of the most family-oriented societies in the world, but finding ways for singles to meet is not as easy as one might think. Zacharie first realized that when she saw how many young, single people who were inspired to come on aliyah, like she was, went back home within a few years.

“The main reason they were leaving,” she says, “is they were lonely,” a condition compounded by being in a family-oriented culture where people tend to celebrate holidays with close relatives.

While Israel appears to be a close-knit society, Zacharie points out that there are so many divisions and factions — religious-secular, Ashkenazi-Sephardi, sabra-immigrant, urban-kibbutz, and left-right politically — that make it difficult to find a suitable partner.

She started holding parties for friends and their friends, which became bigger and more successful, with people traveling long distances to attend. Realizing that the need was great, she formed Eden 2000, which has drawn close to 20,000 young professionals to some 400 events in the last nine years.

Craig Cole, a Bronx native who made aliyah in 1988, says he met his wife, Yael, a Yemenite Israeli, six years ago at a rooftop party in Old Jaffa sponsored by Eden 2000. What appealed to him, he said, was that the social events the group sponsored, like coffeehouse discussions about aspects of single life, attracted “quality people” and were done “in a tasteful way.” And Zacharie seemed to know everyone there, he said.

The programs “opened the door” for Cole, he said, helping him meet people beyond the small group of Anglos in Jerusalem that he knew.

The Coles became engaged after three months, married six months later, and now live with their three children in Elazar, a community in Gush Etzion.

While continuing to sponsor singles events, Zacharie acknowledges that they are hit or miss, and only address a part of the problem. She has expanded her efforts, launching Romancing Israel, a project to advance the singles issue on a national and then international scale.

Zacharie has received support from the Jewish Agency, which recognizes the benefits to aliyah and to the economy from promoting marriage and family. But until now the support has been more in praise than finances, and she is looking for other organizations to work with, insisting that the goal is “to make a difference, not just put Band-Aids here and there.”

Among her goals are to “elevate the singles issue into the Israeli public consciousness”; encourage universities to establish a discipline that would deal with love, dating and marriage; and work with psychologists and matchmakers in promoting better understanding between the sexes.

Yaakov Ne’eman, chairman of the executive committee of Bar-Ilan University and a former Israeli cabinet minister, says Israel should indeed emulate Singapore and create a government program to focus on singles.

“We must do it,” he says, for the same reason that he supports Zacharie — because “nothing is more important to the state than aliyah.”

Ne’eman sees her work with singles as part of the aliyah picture, since “many who come to Israel leave because they don’t find a partner.”

Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is another advocate of Zacharie’s efforts, which he describes as “remarkable.” He, too, would like to see the Israeli government and Jewish Agency investing in this issue on a large scale.

In the past, the Knesset has debated encouraging families to have more children by providing funds, and Ephraim Lapid of the Jewish Agency would like to see a movement to promote the idea of Israelis having at least four children.

But Steven Bayme, national director for contemporary Jewish life at the American Jewish Committee, points out that historically such campaigns are unsuccessful, in any society, because the number of children a couple has is based on personal, not national, priorities.

Bayme adds that despite Israel’s demographic struggles, the Jewish state is “the only society in the world experiencing a positive birth rate.” (Germany and Brazil are the only other Jewish communities that are growing, through immigration.)

Clearly, as aliyah from the former Soviet Union and other area decreases, “internal aliyah” — Liaura Zacharie’s phrase for an increase in the number of Israelis through more marriages and children — is an issue waiting to be tapped. The concept is there, and the organization is in place. Zacharie just needs the financing and support that could, on a wide scale, raise social consciousness — and perhaps result in the raising of many more Jewish children, as well.
- posted by Izak @ 6:44 PM (0) comments

 
Of 300,000 to 350,000 non-Jewish immigrants presently in Israel, only 923 converted in 2003
Who's to blame for low conversion figures?

By Amiram Barkat

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/432019.html

(Infighting between various Israeli vested power-groups.)

With cheeks flushed with excitement, Natalia K., a new immigrant who lives in Bat Yam, presented herself at the special conversion court in Jerusalem. In a mixture of Russian and Hebrew, she tried to explain to the three dayanim (rabbinical judges) how she envisions God. "He's sort of a father to everyone, but especially to the people of Israel," she said. "Does he care, for instance, when a non-Jew steals?" asked one of the dayanim. "Yes, he cares," Natalia replied after some hesitation, "but not as much as he does when a Jew steals."

Natalia is 36, has a 4-year-old daughter, and came to Israel from Ukraine two years ago. Before the court interview, she had to study for at least 10 months in a conversion program. Throughout that period, she kept a strictly kosher kitchen, maintained weekly contact with an observant "adoptive family," sent her daughter to a religious school and paid regular visits to the neighborhood synagogue.

She did well in the court interview, answering dozens of questions about Jewish holidays, scriptural duties, scenarios in which Sabbath strictures are waived, and more. Her tasks did not end there: in order to win final recognition as a Jew, she will have to submerge in a ritual bath, along with her daughter.

Last Thursday, Justice Minister Yosef Lapid foiled a move intended to remove the conversion system in Israel from the control of the rabbinical establishment. In March, after the Religious Affairs Ministry was abolished, the courts were placed under the auspices of the Justice Ministry along with the Rabbinical Courts Authority. Cabinet Secretary Yisrael Maimon and Jewish Agency Chairman Salai Meridor, who met with Lapid on Thursday, told him that Ariel Sharon favors easing the conversion procedure in order to greatly increase the number of converts.

To that end, they asked him to sanction the removal of the conversion courts from the Rabbinical Courts Authority, and to make these subordinate to the conversion setup established several months ago in the Prime Minister's Office, headed by Rabbi Haim Druckman. Lapid turned them down, claiming that Druckman can't generate real change because he's incapable of confronting the rabbinical establishment. Neither was Lapid swayed by the argument that Reform and Conservative Jews support the move. Druckman himself refuses to weigh in on the matter.

Sources close to Druckman say Lapid ascribes great importance to the conversion system and intends to retain control over it. "The conversion procedure needs improvement, but we are planning to do it ourselves," explained MK Ronnie Brizon (Shinui). Brizon noted that these changes will be made "with the rabbis' consent and in cooperation with the head of the rabbinical courts, Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan." However, the division of authority between the Justice Minister and the rabbinical establishment is unclear, largely because of Ben-Dahan, who, prior to the reshuffle, published new regulations that grant complete control over conversion to the president of the Rabbinical High Court, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar.

There are an estimated 300,000-350,000 non-Jewish immigrants living in Israel. Only 923 of these were converted in 2003 in the special conversion courts - about the same rate as in each of the past seven years.

The failure to increase the number of converts can be pinned on Prime Minister Sharon, who declared the subject a "national objective" shortly after taking office. Another failure bears the name of attorney Yaakov Ne'eman, who headed a conversion commission in 1998 that was supposed to find a solution for mass conversion. The commission's recommendations led to joint conversion centers aimed at preparing converts by a pluralistic curriculum acceptable to all streams of Judaism. Despite a massive annual budget of NIS 20 million, the number of converts remained static. Conversion centers and the rabbinical courts are pointing accusatory fingers at each other.

- posted by Izak @ 11:49 PM (0) comments

 
Sadat; Syria; Stalin; Saddam and all sorts of Anti-Semitism: A debate
Simshalom wrote most of this for Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#Arab_and_Islamic

"Arab and Islamic

Islam and Judaism have a complex relationship. Jews have generally enjoyed the benefits of "protected" Dhimmi status under Islam; yet the political conflict between Muhammad and the Jews of Madina in the seventh century left ample ideological fuel for Islam and anti-Semitism through the centuries. During the Middle Ages, Jews had a better status in the Muslim world than in Christendom, though still short of full equality with Muslims. During the Holocaust the Middle East was in turmoil: in Egypt, with a Jewish population of 75,000, Anwar Sadat was imprisoned for conspiring with the Nazis to bring independence from Britain; the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem was in Berlin supporting Hitler; a coup briefly brought a pro-Axis government to power in Iraq terrifying Iraq's Jews; and the Jewish Stern Gang assassinated Lord Moyne for closing Palestine to Jewish immigration. The tensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict was also a factor in the rise of animosity to Jews all over the Middle East, as hundreds of thousands of Jews fled as refugees, the main waves being soon after the 1948 and 1956 wars. The vast majority of the Jews of Iraq fled in 1952."

Persecutions

JMabel says: Why are article sections "Christian Attitudes to Jews" and "Arab and Islamic Attitudes to Jews" subordinate to the heading "Victims of Anti-Semitism". Isn't this a bit tendentious? -- Jmabel 05:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Hi Jm, since 99% of the world's Jews live/d in countries where the other people are either Moslem or Christian, and that's where the persecutions took place, it's logical it seems. IZAK 21:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Raul says: And I'd be willing to bet that 100% of them lived somewhere on planet earth. Would we be justified in saying that they were persecuated because they lived on earth? Stats 101 - association does not imply causation. ?Raul654 21:58, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)


Simshalom says: Planet Earth? Now that is a stretch isn't it? It's not a case of "causality" either. The fact of the matter is that Jews have lived mostly in Europe (and now in the Americas) where MOST of the people were/are Christian/Catholic, and in the Middle East where Islam reigns. So what is so hard to figure? Japan, India or China, with huge populations and significant religions have not had any major long-term significant contact with Jews as a large sub-group in their midst, whereas Christians in Europe and Moslems in the Middle East always have had. IZAK 23:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Raul says: "Christian Attitudes to Jews" and "Arab and Islamic Attitudes to Jews" are under the heading of "Victims of Anti-Semitism". If all the jews lived in places that were ruled by Muslims or Christians, then *of course* that's where the anti-semitism would occur - they have to be there for it to happen. The implication is that they were persecuted *because* they were living alongside Christians and Muslims, which as Jmabel said, is very POV. ?Raul654 23:46, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says:I think the point is moot (mute?) as someone has re-titled the section in question: "Persecution", and then given it new sub-headings, "Nazi", "Christian" etc...that makes things fit contextually, it seems. IZAK 02:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arab & Islamic

Jmabel says: Continuing on this, I added the following to the section that was recently retitled "===Arab and Islamic===". IZAK promptly removed it without explanation. Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, was killed in 1066 by a mob opposed to what they saw as undue power for a non-Moslem. However, it would have been unimaginable for a Jew even to have risen to a similar position in the Christian portion of Europe at that time.
Modern Arab and (to a lesser extent) other Moslem attitudes toward Jews are often colored by opposition to Zionism and to the policies (or even -- for some -- the existence) of the state of Israel. IZAK, are you questioning the factuality of this? If so, what exactly are you disputing? If not, what exactly is your objection to this material? -- Jmabel 00:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: The accuracy is OK, but the paragraphs are already laden with the main points of Jewish suffering in Moslem lands. What is gained by adding the info about Joseph HaNagid? On the latter points, there is already mention that the Arabs' negative attitudes are influenced by Zionism and Israel. This article's main focus is on "Jews" as an ethnicity in history until the present.IZAK 02:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Baath party

Mustaafa says: The Baath party stuff is misleading. Sure, Jews did also leave after the Baath party takeover in Iraq; but by that time, only 6,000 out of the original 130,000 were left[3], the rest having fled earlier, so Baathism can scarcely be claimed as a major factor. - Mustafaa 19:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner says: Put in something about the earlier departure due to the pro-Nazi government then. Snowspinner 19:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustaaafa says: That isn't true either. Most Jews left in 1952-3, after the government which had briefly supported the Nazis had long since been thrown out by the British. The immediate reason Iraqi Jews left was because of the tensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, although no doubt earlier history helped persuade them. - Mustafaa 19:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner says: Hence my not putting it in. Regardless, the Baathist government caused the remainder of the Jews in Iraq to depart, and it's sensible to mention. Still, go ahead and put corrections in. Snowspinner 20:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sadat & Nazism

Mustaafa says: Oh, and http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/sadat.html agree with other sources: Sadat was imprisoned for being anti-British, not for being pro-German. - Mustafaa 19:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Err, Mustafa, did you see this in the source you site:"...And finally, the young Sadat admired Adolf Hitler whom the anticolonialist Sadat viewed as a potential rival to British control..." Word play is silly, to say that Sadat was anti-British and "not" pro-Nazi is poor logic and goes against what he did. Sadat was actively in touch with the Axis and was atempting to bring Egypt in on their side AGAINST the British as Axis Allies. IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Syria

Simshalom says: As for Syria, please do not make one of the worst totalitarian dictatorships, and an ally of Vichy France, into a "welcoming" home for its Jews as it was not. The vast majority of Syria's Jews fled because of its various governments' attitudes to them. It's, oh so convenient to "blame it on the Israelis", but that is just what it was, an excuse to squeeze their Jews, most of whom picked up and ran as fast as they could from the tyranny. IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustaafa says: Syria "one of the worst totalitarian dictatorships"? By all means. But its tyranny is even-handed. How are Syrian Jews worse off than any other victims of Assad? Syria is no more welcoming to the Jews than to the Sunnis or Shia or Druze or anybody else, but it has made every attempt to keep them in the country. - Mustafaa 17:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Islamic world

Simshalom says: This article is NOT about the "Arab or Islamic view" of Jews, and placing all the blame on the Israeli conflict etc, it is about the history of Jews as an ethnicity, and no matter what summersaults of logic one may perform, it is still a huge travesty of history that almost one million Sephardic Jews in the modern Middle East were forced to flee their ancient homes in the Islamic world they had been part of as productive, good and loyal citizens.IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: And when were they forced to do this? Hmm, just after the emergence of Israel. You think the two events might be connected in some way? Naaah...

Simshalom says: Some will say that this is too "pro" Israeli, but it does convey the FACTS as most Jews understand them to be:

JEWS IN ARAB COUNTRIES BEFORE AND AFTER 48 (
http://www.netanyahu.org/jewinarcounb.html) IZAK 02:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: Seriously, the measures taken against Jews in some Arab countries, notably Iraq, were quite unjust - although Jews also left en masse from countries like Morocco, which treated them as well (or as badly) as any other citizens. But it would be willful blindness to claim that this mistreatment had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, given both the timing and the actual statements of the governments involved - and the major Israeli campaigns to persuade them to leave, which according to some Sephardi sources went so far as planting bombs in synagogues
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html. - Mustafaa 18:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Simshalom says: "Israelis bombed synagogues"??? When??? Before or after the falafel and humus was served :-) ??? Is this yet again desperation trying to "always pin the blame on Israel", what about all the bombs that Arabs threw at synagogues??? Come now!:

Mustafaa says: I gave you the link; it's not my claim, it's an Iraqi Jew's. He may be full of it, or he may be telling the truth; don't ask me. Mustafaa 20:59, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: The point is that YOU MUST TRY TO AVOID TO BLAME THE (JEWISH) VICTIM/S FOR THEIR OWN MISFORTUNES. The Arabs and Moslems MUST take full responsibility for THEIR share of the disenfranchisement, loss of property, persecution, expulsion, and cruelty towards their Jewish fellow countryman in the lands of Islam. I know its hard sometimes, but try to avoid the knee-jerk response of "It's the Jews' or Zionists' fault" every time even a mouse squeeks. IZAK 02:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: So when an Iraqi Jew says Israel was prepared to bomb synagogues in order to get the Jews out of Iraq, your reaction is that his statement is part of Arabs trying to evade their share of responsibility for the Jews' exodus? Sounds to me more like Israelis trying to evade their share of responsibility for it! - Mustafaa 06:53, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Be reasonable now, are you saying that because "AN" unkown "Iraqi Jew" (who is he by the way??) alleged something about Israel, then that is "why" the Jews left Iraq? This is too absurd. Israel, or its birth, was NOT solely "responsible" for Iraq kicking out about 120,000 of its (Iraqi) Jewish citizens. By the way, why would they suddenly want to "blame" people (the Jews) who had lived PEACEFULLY in their midst for over 2,000 years for something that was being done in "Palestine". Is it not self-defeating and illogical? IZAK 09:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: No-one is saying that the rise of the modern State of Israel had "NOTHING" to do with the animosity to Jews in Moslem lands. What is being said is that it was NOT the "ONLY" factor, NOR was it necessarily the "PRIMARY" factor, as since about the END of the 19th century, for over 100 years there were RISING TENSIONS and hatreds that were BUILDING UP for a variety of reasons (for example):

*Some had to do with Moslems THEMSELVES as the Arabs were rising up against the Islamic Turks (the Turkish Sultan had the Caliphate, the supreme position in Islam, which drove the Arabs mad with rage and jealousy), and the Jews were seen as being tied in with the Ottomans who had: first welcomed them after Spain's expulsion of its Jews in 1492; and then allowed them gradual entry into Palestine for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS to the chagrin of the Arabs. By the time the British took over in 1917 there were already tens of thousands of Jews living in Palestine for many generations.

*The rise of modern NATIONALISM with calls by local leaders for "national" Arab states that put pressures on vulnerable ethnic minorities such as the Jews in their midst, who became convenient "scapegoats" for the failures of the new Arab "revolutionary leaders" to come up with "rewards", so they conveniently incited mobs against the Jews' quarters and took away the Jews' wealth (all in the name of "nationalisation" of course,(just another name for state sanctioned robbery) and it was oh so convenient that way out somewhere in the swamps of the Galilee a few "Zionist" pioneers had the temerity to get rid of the mosquitos and plant crops, all "good enough" reason to sanction anti-Jewish resentment and even riots from Morocco to Iraq in Arab eyes;

*The rise of Fascism and Nazism in Europe with those anti-Semitic movements influencing the thinking and aspirations of rising young Arab leaders;

*Founding of the Moslem Brotherhood of extreme Islam, such as we see in the present with Al Quida of which so many Arabs our "proud"; and

*The Pan Arab ideology which was espoused, for example, by Nasser and Saddam Hussein, that called for a "Pan Arabian" alliance that was self-centered in its Arab-Islamic self-adulation and CHOSE to make "Israel" into a conevenient "rallying-cry" to unite the Arab masses, and which resulted in hatred and pressure against Jews in Arab lands to leave...(but which actually misfired as these movements brought the Arab states into conflicts with the superpowers...but that is another story). IZAK 02:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: The founders of modern Arab nationalism were Christians almost to a man - Michel Aflaq, to name the most prominent. They founded it specifically as an alternative to religious-based nationalism, in which they would have lost out. The movement was joined by many Jews (notably in Egypt). Hostile to linguistic minorities, maybe; hostile to religious minorities it wasn't! The rest of this rampant speculation is scarcely worth the effort of a reply; just read up about it, and you'll see that the situation was far more complex than you think... Oh, and Netanyahu.org can scarcely be claimed to represent the majority even of Israelis, let alone all Jews. - Mustafaa 21:04, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Which is the "rampant seculation" part?: Firstly, "nationalism" means all kinds, "religious" and "secular" so why confuse things?; The Arab uprisings against the Ottomans?; the influence of Fascism?; the role of the Moslem Brotherhood?; the influence of Pan Arabism?; the failed leadership of those like Nasser and Saddam Hussein?; Do you claim that these factors had "nothing" to do with the Arabs' modern hating for the Jews?;..... You know what, I think for now
http://www.netanyahu.org/jewinarcounb.html JEWS IN ARAB COUNTRIES BEFORE AND AFTER 48 may have a rational factual way about it, that may be hard to stomach for those not accustomed to hearing the "other side" of the story. IZAK 03:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: "Religious" nationalism barely existed at that point; it resumed much later in the twentieth century. As for the factors: yes, Arab uprisings against the Ottomans had nothing at all to do with hating Jews, and the rest of the factors you list, while relevant, are massively overstated. - Mustafaa 06:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: See also:

PERSECUTION OF SYRIAN JEWS

Mustaafa says: Most of the persecutions in that article - including restrictions on travel and Stalinesque reporting of family members - are imposed on Muslims as well. The monetary restrictions, however, are discriminatory. - Mustafaa 21:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Be real, no need to "go soft" on the Alawite Assads, as they pick everyones pockets...but you know, in the case of the Jews, it seems they, and their ilk, went beyond just "restrictions" and delighted in persecuting Jews for no other reason than that they were Jews...sounds like classical sadism, dictatorship, and anti-Semitism at work... IZAK 03:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pro-Nazi Arabs such as Anwar Sadat were imprisoned

Bcorr says: Hi IZAK -- It's a pretty serious allegation that Anwar Sadat was "pro-Nazi" as opposed to "anti-British" -- do you have some citations that are pretty clear that he was a supporter of the Nazis? Thanks, BCorr|?????? 03:22, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: I am surprised you do not know this piece of important history. See even the source Mustafaa cites [6] says clearly: "...And finally, the young Sadat admired Adolf Hitler whom the anticolonialist Sadat viewed as a potential rival to British control..." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: See some important examples from the web:

Islam's Nazi Connections

(http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4934) :"...Major Nazi sympathizers of this era include Ahmed Shukairi, the first chairman of the PLO; Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, future presidents of Egypt; and the founders of the Pan-Arab socialist Ba'ath party, currently ruling Syria and Iraq. One Ba'ath leader has since recalled of this time: "We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading their books and sources of their thought. We were the first who thought of translating Mein Kampf." Many of the Nazi sympathizers of this era have never repudiated their beliefs; some still openly parade them....Thankfully, the Nazis of course lost WWII and the abortive alliance between Islam and Nazism never panned out. Sadly, there exist Moslems today, not on the fringes but in the mainstream of their nations, who still view this as a great lost opportunity based on profound natural affinities." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Islamism, fascism and terrorism
(
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL04Ak01.html):

"Islamism, or fascism with an Islamic face, was born with and of the Muslim Brotherhood. It proved (and improved) its fascist core convictions and practices through collaboration with the Nazis in the run-up to and during World War II. It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist "Young Egypt" (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two promising youngsters and later presidents, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat. Whether al-Banna, who had already been in contact with German agents since the 1936-39 Palestine uprising against the British, or someone else introduced Sadat and his free officer comrades to German military intelligence is not known. But in the summer of 1942, when Rommel's Afrikakorps stood just over 100 kilometers from Alexandria and were poised to march into Cairo, Sadat, Nasser and their buddies were in close touch with the German attacking force and - with Brotherhood help - preparing an anti-British uprising in Egypt's capital. A treaty with Germany including provisions for German recognition of an independent, but pro-Axis Egypt had been drafted by Sadat, guaranteeing that "no British soldier would leave Cairo alive". When Rommel's push east failed at El Alamein in the fall of 1942, Sadat and several of his co-conspirators were arrested by the British and sat out much of the remainder of the war in jail...." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Beyond the Pale: Nazism, Holocaust denial and the Arab world:

"...When in 1953 a rumour spread that Hitler was still alive, the Egyptian newspaper Al Musawwar asked several leading Egyptian personalities to write him a personal letter. One of those who did so was Anwar Sadat. His message was this: "My dear Hitler! I congratulate you from the bottom of my heart. Even if you appear to have been defeated, in reality you are the victor. You succeeded in creating dissentions between Churchill, the old man, and his allies, the Sons of Satan ... Germany will be reborn in spite of the Western and Eastern powers. There will be no peace unless Germany once again becomes what she was." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


1942-1952, Egpyt: Nasser's Nazis and the CIA :

"In the summer of 1942, when German General Erwin Rommel's Afrikakorps were poised to march into Cairo, Anwar Sadat, Gamal Nasser and their buddies were in close touch with the attacking force and, with help from the Muslim Brotherhood, were preparing an anti-British uprising in Egypt's capital. A treaty with Germany had been drafted by Sadat. It included provisions for German recognition of an independent, but pro-Axis Egypt, and guaranteed that no British soldier would leave Cairo alive. When Rommel's push east failed in the fall of 1942, Sadat and several of his co-conspirators were arrested by the British and sat out much of the remainder of the war in jail. Islamist-fascist collaboration did not cease with war's end. King Farouk brought large numbers of German military and intelligence personnel as well as ranking ex-Nazis into Egypt as advisors. It was a bad move. Several of the Germans, recognizing Farouk's political weakness, soon began conspiring with Nasser and his Free Officers,  who, in turn, were working closely with the Muslim Brotherhood, to overthrow the king..." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr says: thank you for your detailed reply with citations. I have to say that each of them -- such as the http://www.us-israel.org/about/index.shtml -- are very pro-Israel sites, and are not very balanced, IMHO -- and shouldn't be the basis for such strong allegations. I did some searching of my own, and the only citations I could find were eaither very clearly pro-Israel, right wing (like these from Campus Watch and Commentary magazine) were reader reviews of books like The Closed Circle here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566634407/002-9789435-4591258?v=glance&vi=customer-reviews -- or were comments left on bulletin boards, etc., like this one from the Seattle Times comment board: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/mideast/comments.html


Simshalom says: The only question before us is whether Sadat was or was not a PRO-Nazi sympathiser, if not an outright Quisling (as the one from Norway). Regardless of the views of the Jewish sites (and they may be "forgiven" for being pro-Israel), the FACT remains the same about Sadat's pro-Nazi activities no matter which way you "slice it", to merely "categorize" his beliefs and activities as "anti-British" anti-colonialism misses the point, as the Nazi Germans ruthlesly COLONIZED all the lands they occupied, so what was Sadat's "rush"? One can only conclude he and his cohorts would have been happy with an "Islamic Republic of Nazi Egypt" which, mercifully, the British denied them. IZAK 02:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

CIA

Bcorr says: Also, the same Asia Times article you quote above
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL04Ak01.html goes on to say:

"And yet another player fond of playing all sides against the middle had entered the game prior to Farouk's ouster: In 1951, the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of president Teddy, who in 1953 would organize the overthrow of elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh and install Reza Pahlavi as Shah) opened secret negotiations with Nasser. Agreement was soon reached that the US, post-coup, would assist in building up Egypt's intelligence and security forces - in the obvious manner, by reinforcing Nasser's existing Germans with additional, "more capable", ones. For that, CIA head Allen Dulles turned to Reinhard Gehlen, one-time head of eastern front German military intelligence and by the early 1950s in charge of developing a new German foreign intelligence service. Gehlen hired the best man he knew for the job - former SS colonel Otto Skorzeny, who at the end of the war had organized the infamous ODESSA network to facilitate the escape of high-ranking Nazis to Latin America (mainly Peron's Argentina) and Egypt. With Skorzeny now on the job of assisting Nasser, Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals galore. The CIA officer in charge of the Egypt assistance program was Miles Copeland, soon a Nasser intimate. "

Simshalom says: We are NOT discussing the CIA here. What they did as part of ESPIONAGE/COUNTERESPIONAGE is a different subject. Your question was about Sadat's pro-Nazi leanings, and I cited the sources. Whether the sources are pro or anti anything is also not the point. The FACT remains that Sadat was a strong admirer of Hitler, the Jews' arch-enemy. IZAK 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Egyptians during World War Two

Bcorr says: I'm not denying the fact that both Egyptians and Israelis did everthing they could to expel the British from the Middle East, but so often in wartime, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- and even when wars are not raging, there are events like the US-Iran-Israel arms-for-hostages Iran-Contra affair that create strange bedfellows. And if you don't mind, I'm copying this all to Talk:Jew so others can weigh in. Thanks again, BCorr|?????? 13:24, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Diplomatic and political dealings are one thing. All states and vested parties do it. But in the case of Sadat, his life's history proves that not only was he personally positive about Hitler, he also was determined to give the Nazi army under Rommel all the help it needed to enter Egypt. There was no "Israeli" policy to Nazi Germany, as there was no "Israel" until 1947. The MAJORITY of the Jewish population of Palestine was VERY pro-British, and clamored to enter its army to fight AGAINST the Nazis. Whatever minimal contacts there were with German officials was for the purpose of SAVING Jews from Hitler's gas-chambers, and keeping the doors of Palestine OPEN to Jewish immigration during the Holocaust. The Stern Gang acted to PROTEST Britain's closed-door policies, and NOT as a sign of any "liking" for Nazism, unlike Sadat and his cohorts who actually liked and emulated the Nazis. IZAK 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: If the quotes are correct - though I don't put much confidence in their sources - then Sadat did negotiate with the Nazis, and appreciated their role in attacking other colonial powers. But that does not imply that he supported them, as BCorr pointed out, any more than the fact that early Israel had close relations with the USSR and got many of their weapons from Communist states means they were Stalinists. Mustafaa 17:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom: Sadat did much more than "negotiate" with the Nazis, he liked them and coddled up to them. In contradistinction, remember, during World War Two Stalin was RIGHTLY admired by many Jews for many GOOD reasons:

*He fought Hitler to the death; Stalin's Red Army, which had over half a million Jewish men and officers in it, were the ones that conquered Berlin and had the pleasure of bringing about HITLER'S DEATH! and the end of the evil Third Reich;

*Indeed, many of Israel's early founders were Socialists and Communists and were close with the USSR, but at the same time they were also ZIONISTS and DEMOCRATS and thus were very wary of Stalin, as he was of them.

*It was Stalin who thought he could take advantage of these politically vulnerable and ideologically kindred Jews at the founding of the State of Israel, as they needed and accepted his aid AGAINST the Arabs, but the Israelis were always fully commited to DEMOCRACY and opposed Stalin's totalitarianism;

*(P.S. Stalin's first wife was Jewish, and his brother-in-law, Lazar Kaganovich, an athiestic communist hardliner, was on the Politburo with him till the end. Some have even speculated that it was Lazar Kaganovich who was behind Stalin's death in 1953, when Stalin began to plan the deportation of the the USSR's Jews to Siberia. Silly Stalin!) IZAK 03:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: "Rightly" admired by Jews? The man who killed 5-10 million people, according to the Wikipedia? Good to know that you've got a double standard about genocides. - Mustafaa 20:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom: Nobody is saying that Stalin was a "nice man", he was a tyrant. But he was a key ally against Hitler. During World War Two Stalin's USSR was one of the three Allied Powers and was welcomed as such by Winston Churchill of Great Britain and Franklin Roosevelt of the USA. Churchill himself justified his alliance with Stalin inspite of his own anti-Communism by saying in the British House of Commons: "If Hitler were to invade Hell I would support the Devil (against Hitler)". Stalin had an ambivelent relationship with his country's Jews, and they with him. From the point of view of SOVIET JEWS during the Holocaust, there was no "double standard", to them Stalin was the man who DECISIVELY DEFEATED and DESTROYED their arch-enemies: Hitler, Nazism, Fascism, and the Third Reich during the "Great Patriotic War", their name for Russia's struggle against Germany during World War Two. This does NOT mean to say that "EVERY" Jew on the planet is an "admirer" of Stalin, on the contrary, but the fact remains that to the millions of Russian Jews at the time he was their "hero". IZAK 01:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: Sure, he was a crucial part of the destruction of Nazism. But that's no excuse for admiring a mass murderer like Stalin. Zionism was the worst national threat the Palestinians faced at that time; does that make it OK if a Palestinian admires Hitler? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" indeed... - Mustafaa 01:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: You make it sound "so casual", sure this and sure that...Stalin was the war-time leader of the USSR and many secular communist Jews (NOT the religious or Orthodox Jews whom they hated and banned) had helped him build the new Soviet Union, they needed him to defeat Hitler for obvious reasons not just as Jews but as part of an eastern Slavic country that Hitler would have devoured. I strongly disagree with you: Zionism was NOT a threat to anyone. On the contrary, every Jew who arrived in Palestine brought greater wealth, creativity and jobs to Palestine. Most at one time were just simple Orthodox Jews who wanted to study Torah and pray in the Holy Land of their own ancestors. Later the secular Zionists arrived, but their focus was on CULTIVATING the LAND turning it from deserts into something good for everyone: Jew and gentile. It is fanatical inciters of Arab emotions against Jews who are to blame for the riots that killed innocent Jews in Palestine, then and now. REMEMBER: To this day it is Arab Palestinians who clamor for jobs in Israel and NOT vice-versa. If a Palestinian admires Hitler it only shows how deluded they are politically and ideoligically. IZAK 02:07, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa: And anyone who admires Stalin or Mao is just as deluded as someone who admires Hitler. I make no distinctions among murderers of millions. - Mustafaa 06:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: You know, for someone who gets very specific about PRECISE facts in Arab history, you tend to zoom out when the subject is not to your liking. This is not a comparative study of history's mass-murderers. The subject is "ethnic Jews" here. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and others were all tyrants and cruel totalitarians. Mao had NOTHING to do with Jews, he ruled over a billion Chinese. Hitler ruled over most of Europe and he wanted ALL the Jews DEAD. Stalin ruled over the USSR, and he killed millions of people, INCLUDING many JEWS. It just so happens to be that during the Jews' darkest hour of the Holocaust, Stalin kept the borders of Russia open to any Jewish refugees fleeing eastwards to Siberia, and he was the one to destroy the Nazi killing machine and thus those Jews under Stalin were saved. So within that context the Russian Jews admired him. Soon he would be plotting to wipe them out to, but he failed. Jews today do NOT "respect" or "venerate" Stalin at all, (unlike some Arabs who idolize Hitler), but at the time he was viewed with favor by his Jewish countrymen for his role in destroying Hitler. IZAK 09:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Silly Stalin" !

Cecropia says: "Silly Stalin"--now there's a vivid phrase! I remember the last days of Stalin, and somehow I could never picture calling him "silly." Especially not to his face, :) Cecropia 03:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Dear Cecropia, Yeah, now, 50 years after his death, it's "official", Stalin can be called "silly" as we watch (formerly athiest) Putin shake hands with rabbis and give them awards, (former Soviet anti-Zionists) hugging Israeli diplomats, and (previously communist politicians) opening up Russia to the arch-capitalist "oligarchs" some of whom are Jewish by birth...what a world... IZAK 04:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia says: Ah, Brave New World! :) Cecropia 04:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Baathists in Iraq & Syria

Mustafaa says: "The rise of the Baath parties in Syria and Iraq resulted in their large ancient communities fleeing as refugees." This is factually incorrect in two respects: practically the entire Iraqi Jewish community had fled before the rise of the Baath party, as pointed out earlier, and the Jews of Syria were actively prevented from leaving by the Baath Party until 1992. - Mustafaa 17:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: Playing word games is not an alternative to history. The rise of the Baath parties was a process that took many years. By the time they took over in Iraq many Jews had fled PRECISELY BECAUSE it was the moment they were dreading. Similarly in Syria, it was the actualization of the Jews's worst nightmares as whoever remained were made into prisoners of the state, and that is why so may had tried to flee earlier. It was the OPPOSITE of "spring is in the air" for a very long time for the Middle East's Jews! IZAK 03:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: Making provably false statements is not justified by the mere fact that they happen to fit what you think was the broader picture. - Mustafaa 21:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: So then you are saying that the Baathist phenomenon, as represented by Nasser of Egypt, Assad of Syria, (they were "united" through the United Arab Republic), and Saddam Hussein of Iraq should be somehow "EXCUSED" and "NOT" be taken as a major historical "sympton" of rabid hatred of Jews in those lands? Baathism was rooted in Fascism, and molded itself as such and was in the making for over fifty years, it represents an "age" in modern Arab history that contributed to the exodus of the Sephardic Jews from those lands. IZAK 02:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa says: First, Nasser was not a Baathist (and Assad was not in power during the UAR); second, anti-Semitism is a quite minor part of the evils of Baathism, and the people who have suffered worst from the two Baathist governments by far have been Kurds and Iranians in Iraq and Islamic fundamentalists in Syria, not Jews; third, Baathism is not an "age" in modern Arab history, it's a sad part of the history of precisely two Arab countries, and the present of one. It never made its way into the vast majority of Arab countries. - Mustafaa 06:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simshalom says: The point is that the conditions were good enough in both Egypt and Syria that they could actually be "united" in a United Arab Republic. Nasser was also taken with the infusion of socialist, in fact SOVIET ideals, to the point, that he allied himself with the USSR and they armed him to the teeth, just as the Soviets INFLUENCED and ARMED Syria and Iraq. All three of these countries had OVERTHROWN their own Arab-style monarchies, and opted instead for SOVIET-style centralized economies and extremely SECULAR life-styles and outlooks rooted in a kind of socialistic and xenophobic "Arab egalitarianism", but with strong military central control of the levers of power. So, Egypt both before and after Nasser, Syria before and after Assad, and Iraq before and during Saddam, all SHARED a common ideology which in Syria and Iraq was formaly called "Baathism" and in Egypt it was "Nasserism" (also part of "Pan Arabism"). The net result for the Jews was that it was bad for any remaining Jewish citizens, and bad for Israel as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq always targeted Israel for war and destruction since it blocked their various paths. IZAK 09:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- posted by Izak @ 4:08 PM (0) comments