posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:12 AM
Framing the situation in Israel as a problem of moral relativism is a common trope that does more to obfuscate than illuminate. Historically, Zionism
is one of the oldest cultures on the planet. Long before it took on its political aspect, the Jewish communities in the diaspora held on to the memory
of the brutal expulsion at the hands of the Romans in 70 c.e., followed almost 70 years later by the Bar Kokhba rebellion against Roman imperialism
Emperor Hadrian was so angry at the rebellious Jews who came close to achieving independence that he erased all maps, changing the traditional name of
the land from Judea to Syria-Palestina (later shortened to Palestine). The remnants of the Jewish system of government, the Sanhedrin, remained active
up until the year 425 c.e.
While the Sanhedrin was effectively destroyed as an institution in Palestine (formerly Judea), it was never erased from Jewish memory. The desire to
re-establish the Temple system remained a primary focus of Jewish practice and was the foundation upon which political Zionism built its efforts.
Few scholars acknowledge a simple fact - the system of government described in the Torah is actually a Republic, not a theocracy. This fact has been
obscured by the harsh realities of the diaspora and the consequent growth of a form of Judaism that was unknown in ancient times.
By the time of the first wave of Islamic conquest, when Christianity had barely established itself, Jews living in Palestine (formerly Judea) were
spread out over the entire region. Indeed, as Islam spread, it did so first by conquering Jewish towns, eliminating all males from the age of puberty
and up, and taking the women for wives and concubines.
Of course, the Muslims also confiscated all valuables and property and instituted harsh rules forbidding true equality for Jews and other non-Muslims
(dhimmitude). It's within this frame that an objective analysis should be based.
From the beginning of political Zionism, the consensus was that a system of government must be created that would extend basic legal rights to
everyone. Marxist Zionism ended up dominating the political movement, but the Capitalist Zionists (Jabotinsky, Begin) remained an important influence.
While the Jewish state was intended as the national home for the Jewish people, this was not because of a doctrine of apartheid. Under Torah law (and
Rabbinic law), every person who appears before a court has equal standing; no preference is given to Jews and no penalties apply to non-Jews. In
Israel today, a Muslim can take a case to the Rabbinic courts. They can "win" their case, providing the facts support their claims. This is not true
in Islamic sharia courts. Jews, other non-Muslims, and women are not on equal standing in these courts. In modern Israel, Muslims, Christians, radical
atheists, and other non-Jewish individuals can (and do) sit in the Knesset, serve as judges (even in the Supreme Court), own property and businesses,
and so forth. Again, this is not the case in Jordan, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and most other Muslim-dominated countries.
Simply put, looking at the situation as a matter of two groups of idiots going at each other for no logical reason is a grotesque distortion of
history and law. It's a simplistic view that satisfies the ideological purposes of those who propose it, but it does nothing to address the actual
situation. The truth isn't a balancing act. One side has more evidence to support their claim than the other. Conclusions about our struggle to
survive in the Jewish State depend on the prejudices one has when looking at Zionism and Islamic jihad organizations.
The uncomfortable fact is that by adopting a "middle of the road" and "all parties are equally guilty" stance, you end up privileging the groups
whose ideology will never accommodate notions of equality and tolerance.
Writing from Israel....