I don't typically expect to see conservatives support Jewish people considering their concern that the Jews might control entertainment and maybe even the media. — TiredThinker

Anti-semitism isn't limited to one side of the political spectrum.

In modern US culture, supporting Israel would be considered "conservative" although many liberals and even those on the left also support Israel. There's a definite ethnic component to it with even left-wing Jews largely siding with Israel and minorities being sympathetic to palestine. The conflict has strangely been manufactured into "white" Israel versus "non-white Palestine" with "white" Israel as the oppressor. Assad murders 500,000 Arabs no one says anything, but Israel retaliates against Hamas and the world is aflame with protest. Israel is under a microscope compared to other middle eastern countries.

In the long run, maybe in a decade or two, I would like to see a two state solution but not in the near future. Don't forget Egypt also supports the blockade. The Palestinian education system needs to be fundamentally reformed; anti-semitism and violence is inculcated at an early age. One can't help but be pessimistic to see the hostage handovers involving palestinian civilians harassing and shouting death to the hostages. Elon suggested a three pronged approach: eliminate hamas, reform education system, build prosperity. But this will take time.

"The Jewish people are violent" or "The Jewish people are peaceful" - these are racial stereotypes. — fdrake

How about "the Jewish people are learned" is that also a stereotype or just a cultural observation? Are we allowed to comment on Jewish culture or is that stereotype? If we can comment on Jewish culture and Jewish cultural influences, then why not on Jewish people?

I didn't say Jews weren't aggressive. I said they aren't murderous and this view will bear out if we look to homicide rates in Jewish communities. We can also look to prison population numbers.

They killed their own people in which they came from the Canaanites, to gain Israel the first time. And have held plenty of wars in their time.

And Jews had been killing Palestinians under Orde Wingate for over a decade by the time of the Nakba.

Palestinians already knew their fate prior to the Nakba, prior to the 1930s even. — Vaskane

I would take biblical history relating to the 2nd millennium bc with a grain of salt, but regardless, point taken -- Israel was bloody in those times! I am sure there were civil wars. I don't believe in the historicity of the Joshua conquests though. But yes, I do believe that 3300 years ago the ancient Israelites got their hands dirty. What exactly was going on in those days we'll never know, and it should also be clear that the Israelites of Moses's time (~13th century BC if not earlier) did not remotely resemble the ethno-religion of Judaism which is only first mentioned in the 6th century BC, AFAIK -- book of zechariah. They were surely not even monotheists that far back.

Ooh, this is an event that I am not too familiar with. How many Arabs do you figured were killed by Jews working under Wingate? But I'm sure you're familiar with the Hebron massacre of '29 and the Jaffa massacre of '36 among others, where Jews, lacking protection, were massacred by Arabs bearing primitive tools going from house to house with the permission of the authorities. I don't believe the Arabs of the 20s and 30s believed in the inevitability of Israel but perhaps I am wrong?

Immediately upon declaring Statehood they stole the homes of a million + Palestinians. — Vaskane

Immediately upon declaring statehood they were attacked.

Cause they weren't able to contend with the power of a State. — Vaskane

Or because Jews are not murderous people. They are used to be being minorities in countries and having to keep their heads down. They also possess a tradition that places a high value on courts and the rule of law rather than wanton murder.

Many Jews did return to their homes only to find them occupied by Germans. Yet there are virtually no accounts of concentration camp survivors going around revenge murdering and raping Germans. Thank God. No, Jews did not just murder Germans who occupied their homes. They tried to build new lives for themselves.

In the case of the nakba it's a little more complex because immediately after Israel declared/gained statehood, the Arabs attacked so Israel had to counterattack and in doing so annexed "Palestinian" land. We wouldn't be in this situation had there been no aggression from the arab states/palestinians.

So if they wanna get proportional back with the ratio to even make it 10 to 1 in favor of IDF killing the most innocents. I can't blame them, they're the victims. — Vaskane

What do you think the ratio of Germans who killed Jews versus Jews who killed Germans was in 1945? Do you think the Jews ought to have "gotten even?"

This is not the scenario that I posed to Tzeentch. I posed him a hypothetical one involves tribes in antiquity.

So just run. Cede to the wicked. Abandon your farmland, homes, and storage centers to them.

Are you at all able to imagine a scenario where e.g. you're the leader of an ancient tribe that is slowly being encircled by a dangerous enemy who is mobilizing around your borders?

. If you go by the moral clause of not eliminating civillians and if that directly means your defeat in war, then you must either be horrible and kill or accept your own defeat. — Vishagan

I've never heard this idea i.e. "we must kill all their civilians or be killed ourselves" as an actual thing. Soldiers should never intentionally target civilians, otherwise they are murderers and not soldiers. But yes very often civilians will die in the course of a country targeting legitimate military targets and this is a legitimate ethical question, i.e. how many enemy civilian casualties ought a country tolerate in bombing a legitimate target?

But it's not as simple as "oh our sense of humanity holds us back" because often news spreads of dead "enemy" civilians and there are repercussions and the populace turns may turn more against you.

do you have anything to contribute?

Jesus gave a halachic interpretation of eating on the Sabbath. That doesn't mean he condoned work on the Sabbath arbitrarily but that he defended his men (he himself didn't do it) for eating the wheat kernels because they were basically in starvation mode and backed it up from evidence using David and the Showbread. — schopenhauer1

He also said "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore man is lord even of the sabbath." He seemingly claims to know God's intention behind giving man the Sabbath in the Genesis account. Jesus certainly engages in biblical interpretation; it just seems when he does this he'll assume high degrees of certainty/knowledge. The gospels note how he speaks with authority unlike the rabbis/pharisees of the time. So it seems Jesus would be against what we would call restrictive Sabbath rules.

Perhaps he represented a very liberal interpretation, or it could be along the same lines as the eating on the run interpretation. — schopenhauer1

The handwashing episode highlights Jesus's take on defilement which as far as I can tell is unique to him and not the position taken by the writers of e.g. Leviticus, but an interesting one nonetheless.

"There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

So eating shellfish (or eating with unwashed hands) will not defile but e.g. thinking dirty thoughts will. See Mark 7:14.

Rabbi Gamliel is sympathetic to the group in a "wait and see" kind of way. — schopenhauer1

Thank you for sharing. I did not know that about Gamliel.

I never read him in overly positive light. I mean, he was a good king I suppose, but I'd agree with you. He was not a Jesus like figure. Although Jesus was supposedly from his paternal line, because he Bible says the messiah must be, but Jesus had no paternal lineage, being the son of God and all. I never understood that — Hanover

David was the ultimate survivalist and very politically savvy. But yes one doesn't need to look too far to see his faults. The Jesus of the gospels is a very strange figure who is represented differently across different gospels. Regarding lineage, Mark provides a genealogy from David to Joseph who was the husband of Mary. I don't believe there's any mention of the virgin birth. Mark is generally considered the oldest gospel. Jesus also clearly denies divinity in Mark 10:17.

— Baden

hospitals, and schools is wrong

these are normally off limits but since hamas launches operations from these buildings they become legitimate targets. using a hospital or school as an operations center/militarizing it is a war crime. striking a hospital or school that is being used as a military base is not a war crime.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank. — Tzeentch

Don't rely on my word. Hamas leaders openly state it as it has been their position from the very beginning. This is not about Gaza. Gaza has been rid of Jews since '05.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBwzNAV4sWs&t=197s

At 2:15 the question is asked directly.

Even in the limited context of present events there's no moral high ground for them to claim — Tzeentch

I disagree. Hamas intentionally murders the innocent, Israel kills the innocent as a byproduct of striking legitimate military targets. The IDF does not indiscriminately murder. There is a difference between the indiscriminate, deliberate murder of civilians as Hamas does and targeting, e.g. the Hamas headquarters - a legitimate military target which unfortunately Hamas choose to have at al-Shifa hospital.

Hamas is a resistance movement. — Tzeentch

Resistance fighters don't behead babies in their cribs. They don't throw babies into ovens. They don't murder a child's parents and then play with the children afterwards while filming it. 80% of the victims showed signs of torture. Then there's the rapes. And Hamas has clarified that they wish to do this again and again.

If Israel wants it to stop, they should stop existing. — Tzeentch

FTFY. The state of Israel per se IS the occupation per Hamas. Hamas is committed to the annihilation of any independent Jewish state on that land. This is not about a few miles of Gaza or the WB.

I was thinking more along the lines of e.g. "Rabbi Gamliel preached..." which is similar to Jesus's view. If you're not going to use the gospels then what is our source for Jesus's teachings? We must use the gospels. I mention nothing of the miracles here; only the teachings.

They need Jesus to look sui generis. — schopenhauer1

I've broadly bought into this idea. I could be convinced otherwise if there were other Jewish preachers/thinkers who preached ideas analogous to Jesus but I haven't quite come across them. Show me the sources and my views can be changed. "Blessed be the poor in spirit", "love your enemies" - show me Jewish thinkers who preached in a similar vein.

Yes in a perfect world the palestinian children are safe and happy. no one wants harm to come to children. but regarding how palestinian children are actually raised... that question goes to the palestinians. religion/culture is the major divide in the region and the jews will do things their way and the palestinian muslims have their own way. I think this is ok. But to ask a Jew how the ideal Palestinian muslim ought to live is a minefield of a question. But regarding the Palestinians we'd give the same answer we give all gentiles: Follow the 7 noachide laws and you're fine. Beyond that we don't judge as it would not be our place.

If the OT says the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled, that's slave morality. — frank

Yeah, that's the 30,000 foot view. Big picture. But the OT isn't 100% like that. You have the story of King David and Solomon where their riches are written of positively. Israelite strength is portrayed positively. Be strong. Be wealthy. Be knowledgeable. Be righteous. It's really Jesus who imho truly encapsulates and preaches servant morality. The themes are still present in the OT though.

I've noticed Jewish colleagues tiptoeing around answering a simple question: "in an ideal world what do you wish the lives of Palestinian children looks like?" — Benkei

What are they suppose to say? "Convert them out of Islam?" Jews know Jewish culture, don't ask them what the ideal Palestinian/Muslim culture looks like. Do we want them to be shi'ites or sunnis? Do we want them to be devout muslims? No idea. Do the basics but the rest is up to you.

History is a cloud out of which you can pull whatever narrative you like. — frank

And the Old Testament displays a certain narrative where the weak are uplifted and the mighty are humbled. I never said Nietzsche was wrong; only that his "slave morality" is typified in the Jesus of the gospels. Some people think Jesus epitomizes Judaism. I never said that Christians were or ought to be pacifists. Some narratives are good and needed, others are immature and lacking.

In short, Judaism popularized hate and resentment as the equation for birthing values with the ancient slave revolt in morals. AntiSemitism is just another form of slave morality following the Judaic formula. — Vaskane

Judaism popularized a book where the oppressed are uplifted and mighty kings are humbled. it is not about hating the aristocratic. much of the old testament attests to the regal glory of the mighty king david. it is jesus who says "blessed be the poor and meek" and "it is harder for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." it is the jesus of the gospels who most adequately encaptures what jesus refers to as "jewish slave morality."

If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want"). — baker

Yes it helps people successfully operate in the world. Jesus says all who humble themselves will be exalted and all who exalt themselves will be humbled. As humans we could behave in any number of ways: Don't go around exalting yourself... for numerous reasons. Jesus provides helpful social advice and helps one be well liked/attractive. Similar ideas can be found in Jewish thinking but Jesus puts in stronger terms. Jesus teaches you be attractive.




Yes forgiveness is very important, but there's a not-so-subtle reason for it. "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (Matthew 6:14).

Maher makes a good point, but he completely overlooks the bible as a source of anything related to western civilizations/ideals. I think of Samuel's speech in book of samuel inveighing against the evils of centralized government. Samuel could easily remind one of a modern libertarian with his anti-monarchist ideas. There is a genuine debate over whether this style of governance ought to be adopted. The idea of a court system is also heavily biblical. In any case, I agree with Maher's point he just leaves out one major source of western civilization.

So the concept of nations doesn't arise at least 2,000 years after Judaïsm was made up but they are a "nation-race". Of course, I totally get that people who read a right to land based on some scribbles from people that probably got high on shrooms and think it was the revelation of God then can read "nation" into their favourite piece of insane ramblings but nobody who doesn't have a horse in this race is fooled by that. Even a century after nations arose nobody spoke about Jews in that way. So yes, it's a totally politically expedient invention. Obviously. But carry one. — Benkei

I understand the claim of "nation-race" - or rather "nation people" we should say; one cannot convert into a race. The period between the 11th century BC - 6th century BC, under the independent Israelite monarchy(s) was really, I believe, when we see Judaism really "form" in terms of the major ideas and practices. Obviously these monarchies were not a nation state in the modern sense, e.g. of having clearly defined borders - but this is still clearly an issue in the middle east today. So, maybe not "nation people" but "independent kingdom in the land of Israel" people.

my position is due to the clear and powerful emphasis that jesus places on the afterlife and avoiding hell. he preaches a hard line. do you disagree?

It helps if you make an argument for your position.

He is sui generis and thus not quite "Jewish" but only "within the Jews". — schopenhauer1

Yet everyone ought to agree that he is/was Jewish.

As I said, I'm willing to accept that all of it is myth. — schopenhauer1

All literature on Jesus is myth? Then on what basis do we form an idea of him? Some things must be taken as truth or truthful. imo It is not fair to regard everything in the gospels as myth; this is not just my position its also Bart Ehrman's.

That is to say, we really don't know if the Hillelites held "official" positions and that there could not be ones that could vascilate between various points of view, but generally align with the core ideas of their main "party" or "school of thought". So I don't think that really provides solid evidence against this. Rather, Jesus' call for intention over ritual seems more in line with Hillelite ideals. — schopenhauer1

Broadly-speaking, Schopenhauer characterized Judaism, Islam, and Protestant Christianity as "life affirming" because of their emphasis on embracing the here and now, and this life. He characterized Buddhism, Hinduism, and Catholic Christianity as life-denying — schopenhauer1

There are trends in the Hillelite tradition, otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk generally about it - it would just be a collection of disparate individuals with their own disparate opinions. I agree that Judaism is generally life-affirming. Jesus is unquestionably life-denying if we regard his teachings in the gospels as accurate representations of his thought.

Regarding the question of whether Jesus is a Pharisee... I don't wish to get too bogged down in semantics. Maybe he had a Pharisaic upbringing. It's entirely possible. Could have been a member of Pharisaic civilization. When I form my views on Jesus as a thinker I am based my analysis of him based on what he says in the gospels, particularly Mark and Matthew. Pirkei Avot is a Talmudic tractate on Jewish ethics at that time and I find considerable contrasts (although with some common ideas) with the teachings of Jesus. It's fascinating for me: Pirkei Avot has timeless wisdom with a practical utility; with Jesus his teachings tends to focus more attaining the ideal even if it puts one at great danger. Jesus never really expresses concern for his followers physical well-being or living a long life; OTOH he says it is of no great matter whether one dies at e.g. age 6, 30, 60, or 90 because it is all in God's hands. Jesus differs from Judaism both on the nature of salvation and on the nature of God.

So I'm not saying you're wrong. But, regardless of where antisemitism started, it is ultimately a consequence of popularizing resentment as the foundation for moral systems, which was made popular with Judaism. — Vaskane

You'll have to explain to me how Judaism popularized resentment as its moral foundation. If you ask the Jews I suspect they'll tell you morality consists of following God's commandments, none of which involve resenting.

Apparently Hamas is now using sniper rifles on palestinian women and children who were trying to move south to avoid the violence. not surprising as hamas reportedly set up roadblocks to stop people from going there. high numbers of civilian casualties certainly benefits their cause.

This is very much an anachronism. Like the rest of the ancient world a large percentage of Judean/Galilean Jews were illiterate. And I am willing to say Jesus was also illiterate and that almost every portrayal of him is basically propaganda, but I do think there is a historical person in the trappings that the New Testament writers wanted to portray him as. — schopenhauer1

Let's say then "educated in the Jewish tradition" - such a statement seems self-evident to me as Jesus is able to cite Scripture 78 times and draws from a wide variety of the books. Luke 4 describes Jesus reading from a scroll. I don't particularly doubt Jesus's literacy. Amos, a shepherd, was literate and wrote in the 8th century BC. I believe there's a tradition of literacy in Jewish culture. I would also question whether Jesus was a peasant and if he was not that would have raised his prospects of being literate. In any case, I don't find it that far fetched that he was literate.

EDIT: After further research I am less certain in my position. Jesus may have been illiterate. Chris Keith's "Jesus's literacy" concludes that Jesus was unlikely to have been literate. In the gospels, however, Jesus is not omniscient. Scholarship seems divided on this.

here was no universal "Yeshiva" system or the kind of educational emphasis on minutia of Mosaic law, as in the post-Temple Rabbinic Judaism — schopenhauer1

:up:

This seems to be an internal debate, not external. — schopenhauer1

It's internal in the sense that Jesus is a Jew criticizing other Jews. I do believe Jesus & followers were originally a break-away sect of Judaism. Yet IMHO his teachings as presented in the gospels are a different animal than what one would find with Hillel or Shammai, although I'm not well read on either of these two.

I do think that it was more like a "Hillel with urgency" approach to law, combining the more lenient views of Halacha of the School of Hillel — schopenhauer1

Jesus is stricter on some things (e.g. monitoring one's thoughts and eye contact) and looser on others (shabbat restrictions, hand washing.)

That’s because you are taking the Gospels as gospel. Not a good move if you are approaching as critical historian. Depending on your interpretation, Jesus seems to have been quite conversant and possibly somewhat educated in a Hillel Pharisee milieu for much of his halachic interpretation of Torah law. When “condemning” Pharisees, it would be then as one from the inside and possibly contra the Shammaite Pharisees. My more speculative interpretation would be that he was a trained Hillelite Pharisee who later became an apocalyptic Jew as influenced by Essenic John the Baptist. I don’t buy the “merely a peasant” portrayal. He may have been of am ha-aretz tekton background, but clearly somewhere became relatively educated in Pharisee interpretations of Jewish law. His brother James headed this hybrid Pharisee/Essene sect, but the group’s fundamental nature changed amongst the group’s diaspora adherents with the forceful evangelizing of Paul and his interpretations of Jesus as the “Christ”. Other strains like the Johannite strain that conceived of Jesus as the pre-existing Logos combined Greek/Platonic elements as well. By this time, Jesus the itinerant Pharisee/Essenic Jew became something much different in these diaspora communities and those became the gentile/Pauline churches that became Christianity. The original Jamesian sect died out several hundred years later in the Levant. — schopenhauer1

I think it's plausible Jesus was educated in the Jewish educational system. Teachings such as "love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you" cannot be found in Hillel or Shammai. His views on the Sabbath, I believe, place him well outside of Jewish tradition. But for sure some of his views do have echoes in the Talmud. I also see the influence of the Essenes in Jesus and of course John the Baptist; I believe a common view among the two groups is to never swear a vow to heaven. My own personal Jesus is more along the lines of Mark/Matthew. I also find Jesus terrifying. He assumes a greater degree of certainty and authority than the Pharisees.

Hey guys, check out this epic exchange between Ben Shapiro and anti-Israel activist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqD-bwXzWV4

I did watch the Ta-Nehisi Coates interview. He mentions several times how the Palestinians should have voting rights, and I was thinking "why, so they can vote in the group that massacred Israelis?" Shouldn't they get free Israeli healthcare too? Wouldn't that be nice? The apartheid comparison seems ill-fitting given the Palestinians are under their own rulership; Hamas in Gaza and the PA in the WB. I would get it if it were about e.g. Israeli citizens under Israeli law. There was a lot more freedom in the WB until the rockets starting firing.

What kind of shithole America would be then ruled by Apaches and the bunch? It's simply as ludicrous as thinking that in the 19th Century the Plain Indians or any of the various could have defeated the whole US Army. — ssu

It's not just Hamas. There's Hezbollah and Iran and a whoever else opposes Israel. I'm also not fond of the assumption that the Palestinians just are the native inhabitants of the land. IMHO the "indigenous" people of this land are both Jew and Arab. Judaism gets formed in Samaria and Judah in the 1st millennium BC so I would consider Jews indigenous.

Right, but the actual teachings of Jesus are more against the Sadducees' formalism than the Pharisees. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I guess Jesus's teachings could be compared and contrasted with both groups. When I read the gospels I see Jesus primarily critiquing Pharisaic materialism. A popular Pharisaic idea was basically to try to balance one's material life with one's religious obligations. One foot in the material, one foot in the divine. The Pharisees have a civilization to run. The differences are many. The Pharisees favor long-term planning, Jesus says do not worry about tomorrow. Pharisees laud grey hair as a sign of wisdom; Jesus elevates the role of the child. Jesus and the Sadducees certainly disagree on a variety of issues, but imho its his disagreements with the Pharisees that are the most interesting and pertinent. It is in his disagreements with the Pharisees that his radicalness is revealed.

The NT certainly motivated anti-Semitism at times, but so did the OT. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get that. I just find the writers of the NT in their descriptions will take certain liberties. For instance the way they describe the Pharisees in Luke 16 in the parable of the shrewd manager. "The Pharisees, who love money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus." There's the teachings of Jesus and then there's the accounts of the disciples/writers.

Thank you for the very informative post BTW.

it seems that they only focused on Jewish people, while the Holocaust also affected Socialists, homosexuals, gipsies, etc. I never heard of a film about the Holocaust in which these victims are also included. — javi2541997

I just watched "Photographer of Mauthausen" and that focuses on Spanish victims. "Come and See" focuses on Slavic/Russian victims (it is also the most horrifying/realistic WWII movie that I am aware of.) There is a lot of Russian material on this topic. I agree with you that the gypsies receive very little attention.

simple questions: how old is Judaism? How old are nation states? How old are passports as a means to enforce national borders? It's a subversion for political reasons. — Benkei

Not a simple question. The history trace back around 4000 years, but many of the key religious ideas/concepts doesn't form until the 1st millennium BC. Nation states don't emerge until the 16th century IIRC. Passports are 19th century. Judaism formed in autonomous ancient kingdoms in Samaria.

I don't think it need justify its existence; I simply don't think it has any claim to exist because God wills it or because it's the homeland of the Jews. — Ciceronianus

One could make a case along the lines of national self-determination.

Quite common, I know. How else explain why one's God-given homeland hasn't been home for thousands of years? But I assume you're aware that many people don't consider the Bible or the Torah to be determinative, especially when it comes to ownership of land. — Ciceronianus

It's common as a mode of explanation throughout the Bible, even on a personal level. Why does King David's infant son die according to ancient biblical writers? Because of the Urijah debacle detailed in book of Samuel. Even kings are not above God and will be held to account. Misfortunate is very often attributed to one's bad deeds.

Regarding ownership of land, I don't know whether Israel needs to justify its own existence anymore than any other state. It exists and continues to exist.