Walls and Fences
Extention to the Palastine/Israel debate: The end of the two state solution?
--------------
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:58:07 +0200
On 4 Aug 2003 at 22:20, Berend Schuitema wrote:
> Just wondering how the Talmud apparently precludes a similar
type of social concern applicable to non-Jews, like the
Palestinians.
It does not necessarily exclude such a concern, but its focus
clearly is internal, on how Jewish communities may organise their
lives according to old religious principles but in circumstances
that require adaptation (being a minority, living in exile, etc).
Most religious Jews however, would have very little to do with
the Talmud in their daily lives: it is a highly literate source
written in foreign languages - Aramaic and Hebrew - with different
scripts in the body of the text and very small font. The 16th
century 'Set Table' (Shulhan Arukh) is the 'manual' that guides
people in their daily lives, but it pays much more attention to
practical questions such as how to conduct yourself in the bed
and the kitchen than to philosophical and political issues.
Judaism is similar to Islam in this sense, with the focus being on
practical observation of rituals in a community setting, rather
than on personal beliefs and road to salvation.
> Apropos to this, does the Sabeel Liberation Theology group of
Palestinian Christians (of which Archbishop Tutu is a patron)
and Talmud interpretations bid any common ground?
Sabeel do have contacts with progressive Jews - there is an
organisation in Jerusalem called Rabbis for Human Rights for
example - but somehow I suspect the Talmud does not play much of
a role in their discussions and activities.
> > Shahak was a great human rights activist but pathologically
obsessed with religion (I speak here from personal experience,
having worked with him for many years). His writings on Judaism
and his anecdotes are best taken with a large dose of salt, and
never as a sole or primary source.
> May well be, definitely he was not popular among Zionists. I have
only recently taken an interest in this field and found that
Shahak was on speaking terms, could find themselves on the same
page with people like Noam Chomsky.
For a long time Shahak was the most important source of information
on Israeli politics for Chomsky and Said (and many other activists)
through his personal news service (copying, translating and
disseminating articles from the Hebrew-medium press in the pre-
Internet era). His agenda around religion is a different matter
though, and I have never met anyone (Zionist and anti-Zionist
alike) who shared it. If you do a google search, the first source
that comes up is an Islamic media outlet that uses Shahak's stuff
as 'evidence' about the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world
through drug trafficking and control of the media...
On the other hand, reading his work, I also get a:
> feel of obsessiveness - the same I had when as a youth I read
Brian Bunting's book "The rise of the South African Reich".
Funny you should say that. I was thinking of an analogy to Shahak's
attitude and Bunting came to mind, but for a more accurate analogy
you may have to go back to the Middle Ages, when typically a priest
and a rabbi (and sometimes a Muslim scholar) would have a public
debate about the merits and demerits of their respective religions,
only in this case the 'rabbi' attacks his own religion.
> The shift in later years was to see Israel in the same paradigms
as South African Apartheid. I always accepted that the Calvinism,
warped as it was, was responsible for the underpinning mythology
of Apartheid. Am I wrong in seeing the Talmud interpretations
with regard to state ideology in Israel in the same terms?
I doubt very much that Sharon, Peres, or Netanyahu ever opened
the Talmud, let along looked in it for political guidance. The
likelihood of that is about the same as that of Bush and Rumsfeld
looking for policy insights in St Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. If
you are looking for a source of inspiration for Israeli-Jewish
nationalism, its historical origins in 19th century south/central/
eastern Europe with its notion of resurrected nations and histories,
emancipating themselves from Russian/Ottoman/Austrian oppression,
and reinventing themselves complete with new (written) languages,
myths and other national symbols is a better starting point.
Unsurprisingly, this were notions of ethnic-cultural nationalism
and practices of ethnic cleansing were born: Greco-Turkish forcible
population exchanges after the first WW, the expulsion of the
Sudeten Germans after the second WW, Yugoslavia in the the late
1980s and 1990s are all pertinent examples.
Ran Greenstein
Johannesburg, South Africa
*******
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 22:20:39 +0200
04 August 2003 08:19 Ran Greenstein
> In fact the Talmud was primarily about the interpretation of old
principles in light of new circumstances and applying them in
different contexts, which is a far cry from literal adherence to
texts. In this sense it is the exact opposite of fundamentalism.
Of course, what was new and creative in the 5th century is no
longer so.
Same can be said of interpreting the old principles in new
circumstances, for example the Reformation departed from the Roman
Church, and with modern-day fundamentalists have made adaptation
to the old principles in the modern day world. These adaptations
are not always in flux and adhered to dogmatically - likewise I
assume that once the adaptations have been made in the Talmud
they are adhered to rigidly as well. Of course we are not speaking
of the Judaic tradition as a monolith - as you said there are many
streams in it, including also the non-religious. But with both the
Fundamentalists as well as the orthodox Jews, principles actually
stay the same but interpreted in different ways as the historical
context varies. It seems to me, for example, that the "prosperity
teaching" of the Christian fundamentalists is something that came
up specially strong in the era of neoliberalism. Generalizing, of
course. In terms of this the social gospel of Liberation Theology
is anathema. Just wondering how the Talmud apparently precludes a
similar type of social concern applicable to non-Jews, like the
Palestinians. Not trying to score debating beanies here, just
interests me. Apropos to this, does the Sabeel Liberation Theology
group of Palestinian Christians (of which Archbishop Tutu is a
patron) and Talmud interpretations bid any common ground?
> Shahak was a great human rights activist but pathologically
obsessed with religion (I speak here from personal experience,
having worked with him for many years). His writings on Judaism
and his anecdotes are best taken with a large dose of salt, and
never as a sole or primary source.
May well be, definitely he was not popular among Zionists. I have
only recently taken an interest in this field and found that
Shahak was on speaking terms, could find themselves on the same
page with people like Noam Chomsky. On the other hand, reading
his work, I also get a feel of obsessiveness - the same I had when
as a youth I read Brian Bunting's book "The rise of the South
African Reich". But that was at a time when the Boer still had a
strong presence in my identity. Later perceptions changed of course.
I had a wake up call, though, when during my first years of exile
and working for the Anne Frank Foundation I organized an exposition
drawing the parallel between Nazism and Apartheid. When the old
man, Otto Frank came for a visit to Amsterdam and saw this expo
he had a cadenza and we had a long chat about it. Otto demanded
that the expo be broken down, but the Director of the Foundation,
a liberal Christian, prevented this from happening. The shift in
later years was to see Israel in the same paradigms as South
African Apartheid. I always accepted that the Calvinism, warped
as it was, was responsible for the underpinning mythology of
Apartheid. Am I wrong in seeing the Talmud interpretations with
regard to state ideology in Israel in the same terms?
Ran Greenstein
Johannesburg, South Africa
******
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 18:59:18 +0200
On 4 Aug 2003 at 10:25, peter waterman wrote:
> Are we still awaiting the E.P. Thompson of South African labour
> studies...and the global justice and solidarity movement?
Not sure Thompson is the right model. Joan Scott and Patrick
Joyce have provided a powerful critique of his gaps and blind
spots with regard to gender, politics and identity.
Ran Greenstein
Johannesburg, South Africa
*******
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:25:12 +0200
Ran Greenstein writes in part:
'If leftists paid more attention to religion and culture (and by
extension to ethnic, racial, national and political identities),
as much as they do with WTO negotiations, perhaps they would
understand society better and their capacity to design viable
strategies would be enhanced'
Quite.
It occurs to me that analyses of the working class and labour
movement in SA would be rather different if, and to the extent
that, they took ethnic and religious identity seriously. It was
around 1994 that the first (I think) of those surveys of worker
attitudes revealed to me that a very high percentage of those
interviewed were regular church-goers.
Yet this has never been given notable (if any) attention by
class-oriented social researchers who are highly sensitive to
other aspects of worker belief or behaviour. It is as if religious
(and ethnic? and nationalist?) identity were either irrelevant
or an embarassment to researchers eager to identify rising levels
of some kind of ever-purer class identity (Class Fundamentalists?).
Are we still awaiting the E.P. Thompson of South African labour
studies...and the global justice and solidarity movement?
Or am I being unfair to both?
In the case of the latter, the GJ&SM, there are those who are IMF-,
WB- and WTO-fixated. But what one might call, again, Political-
Economic Fundamentalism within the movement is continually
challenged, or simply enriched, by those concerned with 'ethnic,
racial, national and political identities', both as obstacles to
and as part of a 'world that allows for many others'.
What is promising about this movement is precisely the manner in
which the tradition of Marxist, or Critical, Political Economy,
meets the tradition of New Social Movement, or Identity, Politics,
to the benefit of both.
Thus, much of the spirit of the new global movement has been
inheritted from the women's movement and feminism (itself informed,
in part, by the US Civil Rights Movement). But this movement,
severely affected by 'NGOisation' in the 1990s, has been only
marginally present in the GJ&SM, or the World Social Forums.
The GJ&SM - with its focus precisely on the political economy of
globalisation - is, however, exercising an increasing attraction
for the feminist movement - not to speak of women. And, I have no
doubt, that women (already around 50% at the WSFs) and feminism
will have increasing impact on what has often been a male
(sometimes macho, sometimes tokenist) movement.
There are, as Hamlet would have said had he researched our Brave
New World, more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of
in your political economy, Karl Marx!
PW
********
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 09:33:58 +0200
On 3 Aug 2003 at 20:08, peter waterman wrote:
> I hope we are not boring the proverbial pants off
fundamentalist-anti-globalisers on this list, who may consider
the practices of the Chadissim (in my London Jewish Secular
Ignorant transliteration), of minor significance to the new
global justice movement.
If leftists paid more attention to religion and culture (and by
extension to ethnic, racial, national and political identities),
as much as they do with WTO negotiations, perhaps they would
understand society better and their capacity to design viable
strategies would be enhanced
> But I should, of course, have asked whether the development
had not possibly been in the opposite direction, from
historical Israel, through Ethiopia, then across to West Africa,
and then with the slave trade, to the New World, Black revivalist
religion, then to be turned into a multi-million dollar export
industry by a bunch of hypocritical white racist Jerry Fallwell
lookalikes (for whom see MFleschman on this very list).
It is a pretty long trajectory, but not impossible. Paul Gilroy
in his Black Atlantic presents a somewhat similar picture of how
African cultural remnants shaped black American and Caribbean
cultures and then found their way back across the Atlantic as
New World cultural products.
Ran Greenstein
Johannesburg, South Africa
*******
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 08:19:48 +0200
On 3 Aug 2003 at 20:56, Berend Schuitema wrote:
> Probably an oxymoron in the literal sense. Wish to amend to
"Talmudic Christians". Meaning that both are inclined to follow
the literal meaning of the their texts, both basing on the Old
Testament.
In fact the Talmud was primarily about the interpretation of old
principles in light of new circumstances and applying them in
different contexts, which is a far cry from literal adherence to
texts. In this sense it is the exact opposite of fundamentalism.
Of course, what was new and creative in the 5th century is no
longer so.
> The following passage from Israel Shahak's From:
"Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand
Years", is amusing:
Shahak was a great human rights activist but pathologically
obsessed with religion (I speak here from personal experience,
having worked with him for many years). His writings on Judaism
and his anecdotes are best taken with a large dose of salt, and
never as a sole or primary source.
Ran Greenstein
Johannesburg, South Africa
********
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 22:34:25 +0200
Article below speaks about Christian Zionism - not too far off
from "Talmudic Christian". Also thanks for a fascinating site!
Berend
********
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 20:08:08 +0200
Ran:
I hope we are not boring the proverbial pants off
fundamentalist-anti-globalisers on this list, who may consider
the practices of the Chadissim (in my London Jewish Secular
Ignorant transliteration), of minor significance to the new
global justice movement.
But the people in this documentary - by Julie Somebody (not real
name) - had in it these Jewish folks who were a-singin' an'
a-hollerin', and doin' everythin' 'cept eatin' pork chittlins.
I was seriously impressed.
But I should, of course, have asked whether the development had
not possibly been in the opposite direction, from historical
Israel, through Ethiopia, then across to West Africa, and then
with the slave trade, to the New World, Black revivalist religion,
then to be turned into a multi-million dollar export industry by
a bunch of hypocritical white racist Jerry Fallwell lookalikes
(for whom see MFleschman on this very list).
PW
********
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 19:51:17 +0200
MFleschman:
You receive the 'Non-Kosher Bagel of the Year' awarded, as from
now, by my goodself, as a reward for documenting and/or
demonstrating the wilder of my fantasies.
However, you might do even more harm to fundamentalism by
correcting your URL, which should have read:
www.religion-online.org
And, thanks for introducing me to a fascinating site. I'll go
there occasionally, when bored with things about globalisation,
anti-globalisation, post-globalisation, no-logolisation, etc.
PW
*******
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 20:56:56 +0200
"Ran Greenstein"
> Marx's bigoted notion of Judaism and capitalism is better left
> forgotten (or re-sent to the dustbin of history?)
We can agree to radically disagree on this. But bear with a last
word about dust-bins and scrapheaps - good for the recycling
business. Concept of alienation in young Marx was sidelined by
theory and practice of orthodox communists, Lenin included.
> > "Talmud Christians".
What does this mean? Sounds like an oxymoron. The Talmud is a
multi-volume work that contains very elaborate legal discussions
and competing interpretations of scripture and religious law.
It is very high on tedious legalistic detail and very low on
apocalyptic visions, which is exactly the opposite approach to
the fire and brimstone Christian fundamentalist rhetoric, that
has little use for texts and scholarship.
Probably an oxymoron in the literal sense. Wish to amend to
"Talmudic Christians". Meaning that both are inclined to follow
the literal meaning of the their texts, both basing on the Old
Testament. As I understand it the Old Testament was written during
the Babylonian captivity but at the same time oral traditions
carried on until by AD 200 - 500 the Talmud was compiled. Reference
to "Talmudic" is not only with regard to a literal reading and
acting on the word of God, but also a propensity towards
preconceptions that spoke in the development of capitalism. This
according to Max Weber is what was achieved with Protestant
theology. Medieval Christian theology had a problem with making
profits out of trading and usury that was negated by Calvin. Thus
the inclination towards "prosperity" teachings in the new
fundamentalist Christian faiths. The Talmud also is strong on
usury, albeit that this only prohibits a Jew taking interest from
a Jew, while taking interest from a gentile is okay.
Apropos to the usury story. The Talmud was written in Palestine/
Mesopotamia AD 200 - 500, when basically agriculture was the
bedrock of the economy. By classical times (say after AD 1,000)
many of the things written in the Talmud had dispensations
(heterin) attached because agriculture was no longer the basic
activity, but more trading and finance. Not only were Jewish
financiers the lenders to kings and secular leaders, but were
also doing a lot of business among themselves. The following
passage from Israel Shahak's From: "Jewish History, Jewish
Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years", is amusing:
"In these circumstances, the following arrangement (called heter
'isqa - 'business dispensation') was devised for an interest-
bearing loan between Jews, which does not violate the letter
of the law, because formally it is not a loan at all. The lender
'invests' his money in the business of the borrower, stipulating
two conditions. First, that the borrower will pay the lender at
an agreed future date a stated sum of money (in reality, the
interest in the loan) as the lender's 'share in the profits'.
Secondly, that the borrower will be presumed to have made
sufficient profit to give the lender his share, unless a claim
to the contrary is corroborated by the testimony of the town's
rabbi or rabbinical judge, etc, - who, by arrangement, refuse
to testify in such cases. In practice all that is required is
to take a text of this dispensation, written in Aramaic and
entirely incomprehensible to the great majority, and put it on
a wall of the room where the transaction is made (a copy of this
text is displayed in all branches of Israeli banks) or even to
keep it in a chest - and the interest-bearing loan between Jews
becomes perfectly legal and blameless".
Another instance of the Talmud being, as you say "very high on
tedious legalistic detail", regards Leviticus 25:
"The sabbatical year. According to talmudic law (based on
Leviticus, 25) Jewish-owned land in Palestine must be left fallow
every seventh ('sabbatical') year, when all agricultural work
(including harvesting) on such land is forbidden. There is ample
evidence that this law was rigorously observed for about one
thousand years, from the 5th century BC till the disappearance
of Jewish agriculture in Palestine. Later, when there was no
occasion to apply the law in practice, it was kept theoretically
intact. However, in the 1880s, with the establishment of the
first Jewish agricultural colonies in Palestine, it became a
matter of practical concern. Rabbis sympathetic to the settlers
helpfully devised a dispensation, which was later perfected by
their successors in the religious Zionist parties and has become
an established Israeli practice.
"This is how it works. Shortly before a sabbatical year, the
Israeli Minister of Internal Affairs gives the Chief Rabbi a
document making him the legal owner of all Israeli land, both
private and public. Armed with this paper, the Chief Rabbi goes
to a non-Jew and sells him all the land of Israel (and, since
1967, the Occupied Territories) for a nominal sum. A separate
document stipulates that the 'buyer' will 'resell' the land back
after the year is over. And this transaction is repeated every
seven years, usually with the same 'buyer'. Non-Zionist rabbis
do not recognize the validity of this dispensation, claiming
correctly that, since religious law forbids Jews to sell land
in Palestine to Gentiles, the whole transaction is based on a
sin and hence null and void. The Zionist rabbis reply, however,
that what is forbidden is a real sale, not a fictitious one!"
Shahak says that "this law was rigorously observed for about one
thousand years, from the 5th century BC till the disappearance
of Jewish agriculture in Palestine". Presumably the Jubilee
concept of debt release and return of lands to original owners
was also rigorously observed. Strangely enough our Talmudic
Christians do not follow a rigorous position towards land
restoration and debt release. If, on the other hand, land
restoration and debt release was ever applied, this was only
applicable for Jews amongst themselves. Thus somehow the
partiality of the Jew on this matter is taken along with
Talmudic Christians as both see this applicable only to the
Zionist cause of taken the land from the Palestinians. Ipso
facto, the reason why we see the Apartheid Wall being built in
Israel today with our Talmudic Christian fundamentalists in
full support.
> > When the Iraq invasion took place many were crying their
hallelujahs that the "battle of Armageddon is upon us".
Israel would be restored to the Jews. No wonder when Sharon
visits the US he has lunch with Falwell cum suis.
> They share certain concrete goals in terms of the US foreign
policy in the here and now but very different visions for
judgment day...
"Certain concrete goals" indeed!
Berend
********
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 12:34:40 EDT
ironically (and paradoxically) provoked by Peter to poke around a
little to see what might be out there on the evangelical -Jewish
alliance I found this analysis in a trade rag for the Christianity
industry, The Christian Century that I thought was interesting.
It operates within its Christian ideological and theological
context but (if you pardon the expression) what the hell...
Sorry to those without web access, but its too long for lousy
old AOL to handle.
Evangelicals and Israel: Theological Roots of a Political Alliance
*******
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 13:06:13 +0200
On 3 Aug 2003 at 11:01, peter waterman wrote:
> There is here a suggestion that there are identities which cannot
be diluted. Or that Israel has one. Or that Bin Laden has or had
one. I beg to differ.
> The Argentinean/Israeli journalist and human-rights activist,
Jacobo Timerman, certainly thought that, by the invasion of
Lebanon, Israel had lost its original - secular? humanist?
liberal-democratic? Western? - character (It's a long time
since I read this book).
Sure, identities shift and are modified in the process of
interacting with other identities, and their meanings for their
adherents and outsiders are not fixed. The meaning of Israeli
identity has shifted over time, both for Israeli citizens (who are
not all Jewish, about 20% are Christian and Muslim Palestinians)
and those excluded from its boundaries. And it has shifted in
different ways: it has become more religious, insular and
nationalist, at the same that it has become more secular and open.
This is not a contradiction as it may appear at first sight.
Different elements in the society move in opposite directions,
and the centre may disintegrate in the process. All these shifts
involve, however, different ways of defining and realising notions
of being Jewish, all of which are 'authentic'. Ariel Sharon and
Meir Kahane represent a continuation of some genuine Jewish
historical trends, but so do Noam Chomsky and Joe Slovo.
Timerman is wrong however, to suggest that Israel lost its
inherent moral secular humanist original character with the
invasion of Lebanon (having lived there only a couple of years
before 1982, and without a knowledge of Hebrew, he relied too
much on secondary sources and on the political myths common in
Argentinian Zionist-socialist youth movements). The levels of
brutality practiced in Lebanon were not worse than those practiced
earlier (especially in 1948), but they were publicly exposed to a
much greater extent due to the spread of information technology,
much freer and more critical (Israeli and international) press
than used to be the case before 1973, and a more critical public.
> I only now remember this Israeli documentary, dealing with one,
not-insignificant, Jewish sect. I was amazed to see what
appeared to be a reproduction of the highly-emotive practices
of revivalist or evangelical churches from the US South! Ran
Greenstein may know the name of the sect, and be able to tell
us something more about it. To me it looked like a crossover
between fundamentalist Christians and Jews.
Some Hasidic sects have indeed adopted practices that may resemble
evangelical Christian practices: the notion of repentance and the
creation of institutions to accommodate secular Jews (some of whom
with a prominent public profile) who have found the light may be
seen as a variation on the born-again movement and is a new
phenomenon (was virtually unknown before the 1980s). Despite this,
these new sects are virulently anti-Christian (more so than
mainstream orthodox Judaism). The American fundamentalist Christian
support for Israeli policies is not reciprocated . There are many
other weird and contradictory phenomena brought about by the
intersection between religion and nationalism, such as the hundreds
of thousands of (non-Jewish) Russian immigrants who have increased
the pork consumption in the country tenfold, while adhering to the
belief that the occupied territories are 'ours' by historical and
religious right...
Ran Greenstein
Johannesburg, South Africa
********
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 11:01:26 +0200
Irony and paradox are modes of expression intended to provoke rather
than to analyse.
In so far as Ran Greenstein has been so provoked, and responds in
the analytical mode, and with evident expertise, this is fine, and
I find his arguments largely convincing. I am, however, less
convinced by this passage:
'A Jewish state may collaborate with Christian fundamentalists or
even with radical Islamic movements (Hamas in the 1980s) when they
face a common enemy (secular Arab or Palestinian nationalism).
This does not dilute its own identity. Bin Laden was not less of
a Muslim militant when he worked with the US in the 1980s, than
when he turned against it in the 1990s.'
There is here a suggestion that there are identities which cannot
be diluted. Or that Israel has one. Or that Bin Laden has or had
one.
I beg to differ.
The Argentinean/Israeli journalist and human-rights activist,
Jacobo Timerman, certainly thought that, by the invasion of
Lebanon, Israel had lost its original - secular? humanist?
liberal-democratic? Western? - character (It's a long time
since I read this book).
Even the opportunistic identification with the 'enemy of one's
enemy' surely colours one's previous identity - and not only
by revealing this as unprincipled or hypocritical. Whatever
identity Israel might have had, or projected, or had projected
upon it, after 1948 has surely been transformed as a result of
its identifications with, for example, the apartheid regime in
South Africa (opportunistically transformed as South Africa
began to be so).
But back to my original ironic jest: Jews as Christians (sub-
species: fundamentalist).
I only now remember this Israeli documentary, dealing with one,
not-insignificant, Jewish sect. I was amazed to see what appeared
to be a reproduction of the highly-emotive practices of revivalist
or evangelical churches from the US South!
Ran Greenstein may know the name of the sect, and be able to tell
ussomething more about it. To me it looked like a crossover between
fundamentalist Christians and Jews.
And I took my tongue firmly out of my cheek before I began this
piece.
PW
******
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 09:28:19 +0200
On 2 Aug 2003 at 19:15, Berend Schuitema wrote:
> Could turn this around: when is a Christian State Jewish?
(cf. Marx: "the spirit of capitalism. . . . ", Jewish Question.)
Marx's bigoted notion of Judaism and capitalism is better left
forgotten (or re-sent to the dustbin of history?)
> True - but the useful fool bit is useful both ways. Max Weber
wrote about the link Protestantism and capitalism. Fundamentalist
Christians come from this tradition - denying any historical
worth of the life and times of Jesus, or even Moses for that
matter. Can actually classify them a "Talmud Christians".
What does this mean? Sounds like an oxymoron. The Talmud is a
mutli- volume work that contains very elaborate legal discussions
and competing interpretations of scripture and religious law. It
is very high on tedious legalistic detail and very low on
apocalyptic visions, which is exactly the opposite approach to the
fire and brimstone Christian fundamentalist rhetoric, that has
little use for texts and scholarship.
> right, the Jews have no desire for the return of Christ - but
here is where the apocalyptic fetish of the Talmud Christian
fundamentalists make handy grand strategy bedfellows. When the
Iraq invasion took place many were crying their hallelujahs that
the "battle of Armageddon is upon us". Israel would be restored
to the Jews. No wonder when Sharon visits the US he has lunch
with Falwell cum suis.
They share certain concrete goals in terms of the US foreign
policy in the here and now but very different visions for judgement
day...
Ran Greenstein
Johannesburg, South Africa
********
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 19:15:30 +0200
On 2 Aug 2003 at 14:02, peter waterman wrote:
> Continuing in the tongue-in-cheek spirit of the original:
> 1. When is a Jewish State Christian?
Could turn this around: when is a Christian State Jewish?
(cf. Marx: "the spirit of capitalism. . . . ", Jewish Question.)
>
> When it identifies itself with US Christian Fundamentalists?
Ran Greenstein: It is actually the other way around. Many
Christian fundamentalists in the US identify with Israel
(particularly with its radical right-wing elements).The latter,
on the other hand, despise Christian fundamentalists but regard
them as useful idiots who can provide valuable support and bolster
Israeli positions.
True - but the useful fool bit is useful both ways. Max Weber
wrote about the link Protestantism and capitalism. Fundamentalist
Christians come from this tradition - denying any historical worth
of the life and times of Jesus, or even Moses for that matter.
Can actually classify them a "Talmud Christians". right, the Jews
have no desire for the return of Christ - but here is where the
apocalyptic fetish of the Talmud Christian fundamentalists make
handy grand strategy bedfellows. When the Iraq invasion took
place many were crying their hallelujahs that the "battle of
Armageddon is upon us". Israel would be restored to the Jews. No
wonder when Sharon visits the US he has lunch with Falwell cum
suis.
Berend
********
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Fundamentalim; See my remarks on Panel in Porto Alegre
at the World Social Forum. Dennis Brutus
********
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:49:36 EDT
Peter,
With my tongue firmly embedded in cheek I can only quote that
really lousy songwriter and really hilarious detective novelist,
Kinky Friedman (on one of his mercifully few recordings), "They
ain't making Jews like Jesus anymore."
********
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 16:25:56 +0200
On 2 Aug 2003 at 14:02, peter waterman wrote:
> Continuing in the tongue-in-cheek spirit of the original:
1. When is a Jewish State Christian?
It never is, unless we want to use terms in a way that deprives
them of any meaning.
> When it identifies and subordinates itself to a Christian
Crusade against Islamic Infidels?
A Jewish state may collaborate with Christian fundamentalists or
even with radical Islamic movements (Hamas in the 1980s) when
they face a common enemy (secular Arab or Palestinian nationalism).
This does not dilute its own identity. Bin Laden was not less of
a Muslim militant when he worked with the US in the 1980s, than
when he turned against it in the 1990s.
> When it identifies itself with US Christian Fundamentalists?
It is actually the other way around. Many Christian
fundamentalists in the US identify with Israel (particularly with
its radical right-wing elements). The latter, on the other hand,
despise Christian fundamentalists but regard them as useful
idiots who can provide valuable support and bolster Israeli
positions.
Ran Greenstein
Johannesburg, South Africa
*******
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 14:02:04 +0200
This is the second email on this list questioning my
characterisation of Israel as being part of 'Western Christian'
Civilisation. (See below)
I take it they are doing this on grounds of logic rather than
theology.
Continuing in the tongue-in-cheek spirit of the original:
1. When is a Jewish State Christian?
When it identifies and subordinates itself to a Christian Crusade
against Islamic Infidels?
When it identifies itself with US Christian Fundamentalists?
It's a tough one, but worth thinking about.
2. When is an Oriental State Western?
When it joins NATO (Turkey, around 1949, then targeted at another
Excess of Evil)?
When its Supreme Military Council, or whatever, meets every two
months instead of every month (Turkey, preparing to join the
European Union)?
When, like the US, it ignores UN resolutions it doesn't like
(Israel, which pioneered this)?
When, despite being a theocratic, racist, militarist state, it
calls itself liberal democratic (Israel)?
Another tough one. But also worth thinking about?
Personally, I would have thought that the future of Israel would
lie in an embrace of its West Asian siting and a recognition of
the close relationship between Judaism and Islam (particularly
in their secular traditions). But this might make me, in the
eyes of Official Israel, a jew rather than a Jew.
PW
*******
Re: Walls and Fences
Datum: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:12:41 EDT
"Western?" Certainly. "Christian?"
You just flunked, Peter
In a message dated 7/31/2003 3:42:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
waterman@antenna.nl writes:
> Multiple Choice Question for the US Media (Elementary)
(Choose one of three)
WHEN IS A WALL NOT A WALL?
1. When it was built by the Nazis to surround the Warsaw Ghetto?
(Hint: John Hershey's novel about this was not called 'The
Fence')
2. When it was built by Communist East Germany to surround West
Berlin? (Hint: 'fences' are only built to defend Western
Christian civilisation)
3. When it is built by Western Christian Israel to surround
Devious, Islamic, Warlike, Terrorist Palestinians? (No hint
available for this one)
PW
|