Kindle Notes & Highlights
by
Gol Kalev
Read between
January 9 - January 20, 2022
Many in this part of the Alt-Right display strong passionate support for Israel, while at the same time they express outright passionate criticism of liberal Jews.
Brei...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Given this dichotomy between outright dismay to liberal Jews on the one hand, and outright admiration for Israel on the other, the recognition of the transformation of Judaism would have a monumental effect on this group’s perception of Judaism. From disdai...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Military families tend to be more national-security conscious and supportive of Israel
bigger shift in American politics
away from the Liberal-Conservative divide and the rise of anti-establishment forces on the left, right, and unaffiliated. This is especially the case with young Americans.
One of the staples of the establishment in the US is the Jews (Judaism 2.0).
For many, the symbol of such establishment power is AIPAC,
Trumpism and Bernieism
both of these groups like to engage on Israel.
The Jewish issue is about Judaism 3.0 and not about Judaism 2.0.
CONCLUSION: AMERICA IS ALREADY IN JUDAISM 3.0
America being in Judaism 3.0 does not just enable, but also makes it inevitable for American Jews to recognize the transformation to Judaism 3.0.
The world’s relationship with the Jews can be divided into three distinct periods: – Biblical period (from the inception of Judaism until the 1st century CE exile) – Exile period (1st century CE until the 20th century) – Jewish state period (1948 thereafter). In each period there were different themes governing the world’s engagement with Judaism, which ultimately defined the state of Judaism.
Biblical period – Judaism 1.0’s relations with the outside world
As a whole, the relationship of Jews to their surrounding neighbors seemed “normal.” Conflicts were not driven by hate, but by competing claims.
not from the region, but rather invaders to the region from Europe: the Greeks and the Romans.
rules of engagement were completely different
the conflict was not about issues such as land, taxes or territory. It was about eradicating Judaism and coercing b...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Exile period – Judaism 2.0’s relations with Europe
Current period – Judaism 3.0
The 1948 re-establishment of the Jewish state revolutionized the relationship between Jews and the world. Yet many of the old themes remain, including defining Judaism from the outside and viewing Jews as a nation.
Until the turn of the 19th century, no Jew or non-Jew would think there is any separation between the Jewish religion and Jewish nation. They were one and the same.
not only were Jews defined in terms of their national affiliation, but also attempts by Jews to self-define themselves, in terms of their religion, failed miserably. The outside world insisted on defining Jews as a Jewish nation.
SPANISH INQUISITION
conversos
DREYFUS AFFAIR
HOLOCAUST
The definition of Judaism for the Nazis was based on the Jewish nation and not on the Jewish religion. This was not against practicing or non-practicing Jews, but against any person, of any age, associated with the Jewish nation.
ETHNIC CLEANSING OF MIDDLE EASTERN JEWS
granting Jews’ rights was soon met with a counter-movement. Anti-Semitism appeared toward the end of the 19th century and quickly rose in popularity to counter Jewish emancipation. It was a mainstream movement,
Jew-hatred is alive and well. In its current iteration it is not directed against the Jewish individual, as it is against the Jewish collective (Israel). Indeed, the establishment of Israel in the 20th century allowed Jew-haters to funnel their hate to a tangible target.
This came at an “opportune time” as expressing disdain towards the individual Jew – a European fashion until the 1940s – became unfashionable and taboo in the aftermath of the Holocaust.
Israel-bashing has become the new popular expression of Jew-hatred. Just like anti-Semitism which preceded it, after a few decades of brewing, Israel-bashing has now grown into a fashion and a culture, increasingly penetrating the mainstream of society. This is not just in Europe, but also in certain circles in the United States and around the world.
This includes the attacks on Israel’s right to defend itself, holding the Jewish state to radically different standards than other states, as well as blood-libels such as of Israeli genocide of Palestinians. Israel-bashing is turning into broad and socially acceptable fashion.
In each era, some Jews attempted to distance themselves from Judaism in order to protect themselves. This was proven ineffective – others were the ones to decide.
whether they like it or not, Jews are defined externally by their Jewish national affiliation – Zionism.
The parallels to previous episodes are alarming. Again, there is widespread dismissal. Like before, the denial is due to the focus on the previous incarnation of Jew-hatred.
Like in previous episodes, there were accusations of paranoia,
Another daunting parallel was how socially accepted and even fashionable the Jew-hatred movements became after those few decades of brewing.
Jew-hatred is a European concept. Jew-hatred throughout history originated and developed in Europe. This was to a large extent due to the fact that the vast majority of the Jews resided in Europe.
The European-Israeli conflict is the oldest conflict in the world, lasting for 2,300 years.
The feud dates back to Greek and then Roman invasions to Judea.
Jew-hatred is not the same as anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism is new. It originated in the 19th century. Jew-hatred, on the other hand, has existed since the beginning of Jewish time. As the world evolved, so did the reason (or excuse) for Jew-hatred. When the world (led by Europe) was religious Christian, the hatred was funneled into the differences between Christianity and Judaism. When Europe turned secular, a new form of Jew-hatred emerged, based on national and racial grounds and was later named anti-Semitism.
Like in the 19th century, a reduction in anti-Semitism, or commitment to fight it, does not mean a reduction of Jew-hatred. It could simply mean a switch of form of hatred due to a switch in European circumstances. Indeed, in today’s construct this hatred is directed through Zionism and the State of Israel.
if it is okay to apply the question if Jews brought Israel-bashing upon themselves, then perhaps it is time to also apply this question back to anti-Semitism and other forms of Jew-hatred that existed in the past. Did Jews invite anti-Semitism? Did Jews invite Jew-hatred?
The Egyptian, Persian and anti-Semite cases show that when Jew-hatred is viewed from the point-of-view of the hater, it can be rationalized. Indeed, same in the case with Israel-bashing. If one argues that Israel-bashing is “understandable” given Israel’s policies, one must argue the same with the other iterations of Jew-hatred, including 20th-century anti-Semitism.
the shift of global power away from Europe was also a shift away from chronic Jew-hatred. While on the one hand, a less Euro-centric world is a world with less Jew-hatred, on the other hand, the loss of relevancy and power is by itself a source of new European frustrations that should worry individual Jews, the Jewish nation and the Jewish state. That is in particular because Europeans have historically dealt with new frustrations they encountered by blaming the Jews.
The loss of European dominance is not the only cause for a reduction in Jew-hatred. There are two primary disputers that dramatically altered the evolution of Jew-hatred:
