Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Goliath Felled - or Was That A Stone?
Jonathan Tobin has highlighted the Left's anti-Zionism destructive nature here. Read it, please. His point of departure is Max Blumenthal's Goliath (defended here) subtitled "Life and Loathing in Greater Israel”. Oh, hey they loath.
My frame of reference is what I call the retrogressive nature of anti-Zionism.
The Reform movement denied Jewish nationalism: Frankfort-on-the-Main Conference of Rabbis on July 15-28, 1845, decided to eliminate from the ritual "the prayers for the return to the land of our forefathers and for the restoration of the Jewish state." The Philadelphia Conference of Nov. 3-6, 1869, adopted the following among its principles: "The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of the old Jewish state under a descendant of David, involving a second separation from the nations of the earth...".
Balfour was fought by Montagu.
Then the Brit Shalom/Ihud.
Then the American Council for Judaism, Berger, Lilienthal (who I read), etc.
And every time Zionism won out, and the Arabs shown to be irrational, aggressive and unwilling to tolerate any Jewish presence anywhere in the Jewish homeland (that term itself denied by the anti-Zs), its opponents began arguing from the very beginning, all over again. They debated the basic principles as if nothing had happened in history, in international law, diplomacy, anti-Semitism, etc.
If Arabs can be justified in their throwing stones at so-called 'occupiers', can throwing a (figurative) stone at Max Blumenthal be seen as justice?