According to Wikipedia, the nationality of Jews born in Israel is shown on their birth certificates as Jewish, not Israeli. The reason for this, from the Zionist perspective, is carefully explained in an essay by Eliezer Schweid, Toward a Homeland: Understanding Jewish Nationalism, which was originally posted on the World Zionist Organization’s website. This is a very important and revealing essay, in my estimation, so I copied it to a permanent link after it was moved a couple of times:
Eliezer Schweid is an Israeli scholar, writer and Professor of Jewish Philosophy at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was awarded the Israel Prize in Jewish thought in 1994 and is a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. I think it would be a dangerous mistake to dismiss the importance of his views.
In the excerpts that follow, I have sometimes added boldface emphasis to highlight key phrases and concepts.
I’m not suggesting that Schweid is speaking for all Jews — as a matter of fact, he spends a significant portion of his essay criticizing Jews who don’t see things his way — but he does appear to represent the powerful, deeply-rooted Jewish interests that are aligned with the Zionist/Talmudic inner circles of leadership, hence the relevance of his views to questions about 9/11 and Jewish influence in America. He also makes it clear, in his opinion, that Jews who do not fall in line with his analysis are at risk of losing their Jewish identity.
According to Schweid’s thinking, the term “Jewish” must always point to nationality, but nationality of a type that is unique among nations. Schweid shows us that Zionism is a limited view of a greater ambition, which he refers to as “Jewish nationalism.”
Jewish nationalism is a forbidden topic for non-Jews, but Jews discuss it all the time, especially among themselves. Non-Jews would be well-advised to listen carefully to what they are saying. This is an area where we all have much to learn and where shared understanding is badly needed.
Most of Schweid’s essay is taken up with identifying and dismissing prominent lines of thinking that incorrectly attempt to “normalize” Jewish nationalism by putting it into a “normal” conceptual framework. These inadequate efforts at understanding are associated with seven sources. Three are presumed to be non-Jewish and the other four are Jewish:
2) The secular Left (which in fact includes many non-religious, non-Zionist Jews)
3) Arab nationalism
1) Diaspora Jews who consider themselves to be citizens of other nations.
2) Israeli Jews who do not see a national connection between Jews of the Diaspora and citizens of Israel. This view is referred to as “Israelism.”
3) Jewish positions defined primarily by either religion or nationality, but not both.
4) Jews who have “fragmented or partial” attachment to Judaism, with “one foot” in Judaism and the other in the social and political culture of Europe or America — i.e., partially assimilated Jews.
Schweid begins by acknowledging that Jewish nationalism is an enigma for Jews and a long-standing mystery for non-Jews:
“…the hostility demonstrated against Zionism even in the thinking of loyal Jews stems largely from the incomprehensibility of Jewish nationalism judged within the context of historical experiences or philosophies that bear no relevance to it.”
Jewish nationalism, in other words, cannot be properly understood within the framework of our commonly accepted definitions and experiences of nationhood. I believe this is very true and important, regardless of his dubious claim that “hostility” against Zionism is caused only by misunderstanding. He goes on to describe for us the various conceptual shortcomings that have been embraced by the seven perspectives listed above.
Schweid sums up the failure of Christian approaches to Judaism as follows:
“These approaches do indeed reveal a total lack of understanding: affirming Jewish nationalism while attempting to destroy its religious distinctiveness demonstrates not only a lack of understanding for the Jewish religion but it also constitutes a lack of understanding for Jewish nationalism which is based on religion; accepting the existence of the Jewish religion while at the same time refuting its national character manifests not only a lack of comprehension of Jewish nationalism but also of the Jewish religion, which is national in its very essence…”
This is a very clear statement of the central Jewish concept that religion and nationalism cannot be separated where Judaism is concerned. Even the attempts of “liberal” Christianity to “recognize Judaism as a legitimate religion” are “bound up with an inability to comprehend the obstinacy of the Jews in confining themselves to a separate nationality.”
Schweid’s criticisms of the other points of view all essentially boil down to this same alleged inability to encompass or accept religion and nationality within the same conceptual framework.
For example, regarding the secular Left:
“Amazing as it may seem at first glance, the secularist view corresponds exactly to the religious Christian view.”
Schweid points out that both Christianity and the anti-nationalist views of the Left are “universalist,” in contrast to Judaism, which he describes as “exclusive and aloof,” having been given only to the “people of Israel.” He complains that the secular Left has “reached an extremely critical attitude towards Jewish nationalism” since it tends to reject both religion and nationalism.
“Obviously, the members of the Left are not prepared to approve of Judaism as a religion more than they approve of Christianity. As they see it, religion in general is an anachronism…”
“In the light of cultural developments, most of the Jewish people belong to Europe. They presumably no longer need to express themselves via nationalism but can find their place among the European peoples amongst whom they live..”
He then goes on to describe precisely the phenomenon that so many non-Jews are upset about:
“If such a people [living among the Europeans or Americans] tries to express itself nationally, it retreats from its position [of having a "place" among the other peoples] and thrusts itself into one of dominating other people, depriving the latter of its national rights – and this is an entirely negative phenomenon.”
Yes, it certainly is! But he doesn’t offer a solution to this problem, or even suggest that one is necessary. He abandons this observation, and goes on to mention a redeeming characteristic of the secular Left:
“…there are men of conscience among the Left who have sympathy for Jewish people… These [men of conscience] are prepared to admit the right of the Jewish people… to a secure political haven.”
This perspective is flawed, however, because:
“… [secular] acceptance of the Jews’ endeavours to find a political haven affirms Jewish nationality, but refutes its spiritual distinctiveness.“
He is referring to historic proposals from the Left that were based on the assumption that such a “haven” could be anywhere. Both Uganda and Madagascar were, at different times, suggested as possible sites for a Jewish homeland, but the Zionist Congress demanded Palestine — only Palestine would fulfill and affirm the “spiritual distinctiveness” of Judaism.
“Thus, from the viewpoint of the secular Left, too, it is precisely the “understanding” attitude that embodies a fundamental lack of understanding.”
Turning to Arab nationalism, even moderate Arab attempts at accommodation and understanding fall short because these efforts are “based on differentiating between Israel and the Jewish people.” Referring to this type of approach:
“If it recognizes the national right of the Israelis within their political-geographical territory and the need to integrate them into the wider Arab region it does not thereby recognize that the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and that the State of Israel is the state of the entire Jewish people.”
This is a key point. He’s saying that all Jews, no matter where they are, whether religious or not, and regardless of citizenship in any other country, are supposed to be a part of the “entire Jewish people” and are therefor expected to give their primary political allegiance to the Jewish nation — the “State of Israel.”
But it gets trickier…
Notice that he’s making a distinction between the “Land of Israel” and the “State of Israel.” He’s telling us that “Israel” actually has two different levels of meaning. The conventional meaning is associated with a specific territory, the “Land of Israel,” but when understood in terms of Jewish nationalism, the “State of Israel” demands national loyalty from all Jews, regardless of their geographic location. The “State of Israel” exists in all places where “loyal” Jews exist.
In the light of this expanded meaning, the “State of Israel” is essentially a concept — it can be seen as a nation whose territory exists primarily in the minds of its people, and it is this landless concept of nationalism that preserved the existence of the Jewish nation through the “Diaspora.”
“The connection between the Jews of the Diaspora… and their State is defined even by moderate Arab nationalists as colonialism… and the price they demand for acquiescence in the existence of the State of Israel is therefore the renunciation of Zionism. But from the viewpoint of Jewish nationalism the renunciation of Zionism is in effect a renunciation of the unique national character of the Jewry… So here, too, the apparent understanding embodies a basic lack of understanding.”
In summing up the failures of non-Jews in their comprehension of Judaism, Schweid maintains that Jewish nationalism, from the perspective of non-Jews, is “intolerable.” It is a “peculiar phenomenon” involving a “peculiar people.” He acknowledges the efforts of non-Jewish “moderates” to reduce the inherent tension that this produces, but complains that such efforts always end up trying to “normalize” Judaism:
“…which means in fact bringing the Jewish religion in accord with the prevailing Western conception of religion, or adjusting Jewish nationalism to the conception of nationalism that is considered legitimate in the West.”
In other words, Judaism — because it is an inseparable combination of both religion AND nationalism — will never fit into either of the separate Western concepts of religion OR nationalism.
“[There] is a readiness from one point to accept the religious uniqueness of Judaism by the normalization of the Jews as equal citizens on the basis of cultural and national self-identification with the people in the lands of dispersion…”
It’s fine, for example, for Jews in America to practice their religion, but they are also expected to identify themselves culturally and nationally as Americans, which is unacceptable to Schweid’s version of Jewish thinking.
“…and there is a readiness from another point to acquiesce in the separate national existence of a part of the Jewish people, while ignoring the attachment of the Jewish people as a whole to the Land of Israel.”
Americans, again as an example, are also willing to allow the existence of the state of Israel, but Jews who are living in America are supposed to be loyal (“attached”) to America, not to the “Land of Israel.” This too, is unacceptable to the Zionist view of reality.
“From both points the aim is thus to dissipate the peculiarity of the troublesome reality. Jewish nationalism is asked to liquidate itself and to leave behind two “reserves” that can be integrated into the accepted “normal” frameworks: a supra-national religion on one hand [like Christianity], and Israeli nationalism on the other.”
Note the all-important distinction he is making in this sentence between “Jewish nationalism” and “Israeli nationalism.” In this context, they are clearly NOT the same thing. One is an exclusively Jewish concept, the other is a Gentile (Arab or Western) concept.
He is telling us that Jewish nationalism cannot be integrated into accepted “normal” frameworks of non-Jewish thinking. All non-Jewish efforts to understand and accommodate Judaism within its concept frameworks of humanity-as-a-whole will consequently forever be in vain. This points to an endless conflict between Judaism and everyone else, unless or until one prevails over the other, or someone changes their thinking.
The incompatibility of Jewish nationalism with Western concepts of religion and nationality is not a new problem. Long before the existence of the modern state of Israel, for example, Napoleon, in 1807, summoned the leading representatives of Judaism from France, Germany and Italy to a specially convened “Sanhedrin,” specifically to answer questions regarding the existence of “a nation within the nation.”
Eliezer Schweid goes on to discuss in detail the various Jewish points of view listed above. This is very interesting reading, and it all revolves around the same issues — but viewed from the opposite direction: Jews trying to accommodate themselves to Western culture and concepts, which (he says) ultimately leads to loss of Jewish identity:
“The bulk of the Jewish public that does not yet deny its identity seeks middle ways, the choice of which proves its basic lack of understanding concerning its identity.”
He sees no “middle path” for Jews who hope to maintain their Jewish identity.
Even Theodor Herzl, the “father” of modern Zionism and the first president of the Zionist Congress, didn’t get it right. He was a western Sephardic Jew and his concept of Zionism was minded toward accommodation with western European views. His proposals (including the Uganda idea) were rudely rejected in 1904 by the Russian Jews from the east, who dominated the Zionist Congress and whose views were strictly in line with Talmudic orthodoxy — much like Eliezer Schweid. Herzl died within the year at the age of 44.
Schweid is referring to Herzl and the thinking of other western Jews when he makes these comments:
“Usually in the past, Jews were divided into two groups: those committed to Jewish nationalism on the European model and those committed to the Jewish religion with an ambivalent attitude towards its nationalistic frameworks.”
“…those who laid the foundation of secular Zionism, insofar as they were in accord with the outlook of European nations, expressed a basic lack of understanding of the reasons and longings for Zionism. The Jewish people cannot be “normal” along the lines that non-Jewish friends consider possible and desirable, nor along the lines that seem possible and desirable according to the assumptions of secular Zionism in its classical form…”
Schweid insists that all such efforts at “normalization” are a mistake and “should be regarded as relaxing our efforts in seeking a solution that answers the true needs of the Jewish people.”
He doesn’t say exactly what these “true needs” might be, but he does elaborate his main point by saying:
“The fate of the Jewish people differs from all other peoples. It also differs from all other peoples in the religious-national distinctiveness of its culture. This creates a tense conflict between the Jewish people and its environment [i.e., cultural environment — a euphemism for non-Jews] and gives rise to inner tensions [referring to the conflicting views among Jews]. And this emphasizes more so its very distinctive character and fate. This fact must be recognized in order to strive for the normalization of the Jewish people according to its own concepts.“
He is saying that there can be no compromise with non-Jews — Judaism can only exist “according to its own concepts” — and that “tense conflict” with non-Jews is unavoidable. But what does he mean when he says that “the fate of the Jewish people differs from all other peoples”? Stated otherwise, he is apparently saying that Jews and non-Jews cannot share the same fate.
If, by “fate,” he is referring to future existence, is he then, in essence, saying that Jews and non-Jews cannot co-exist indefinitely? Is he suggesting that sooner or later, one or the other must either disappear or become subjugated to the other? That may sound like an extreme interpretation, but let’s look at his final paragraph…
First, he asks:
“What criterion can be used in the process of normalizing the Jewish people?”
This is the CRUCIAL question, but he leaves it unanswered and only remarks that it is a “subject in itself.” After so much complaining about incorrect thinking, his failure to straighten us out with the correct view strikes me as an obvious dodge. Those who are familiar with this question know, of course, that the answer is provided in the religious texts of Judaism — most particularly the Books of Moses, aka the Torah.
But why does he not mention this? Most likely because the ”normalization” he is speaking of is described therein in terms of Jewish world dominion. The “criterion” for achieving this state are spelled out in the religious laws of the Torah, where God (Yahweh) promises the world to his “chosen” people, but only if they keep his “commandments,” which include racial separation and the pitiless destruction of all who stand in the way of this agenda
See below for a sampling of excerpts from Deuteronomy where this is made clear.
Deuteronomy (the “Second Law”) was first presented to the small and seemingly insignificant tribe of Judah in 621 BC, just prior to the period of Babylonian captivity. It was followed by the other four books of the Torah — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers — which together comprise the so-called “Books of Moses,” so named as a conveyance for Levitical claims that they were communicated directly through Moses, in spite of the fact that Moses had died about a thousand years earlier.
In any case, in addition to the written Torah, the Levite priests also claimed that a secret oral Torah was received by Moses at Sinai, which must never be written down. It is presumed that the possession of these secret teachings continues to define the innermost circle of authority in Judaism, but their contents is of course unknown.
Schweid apparently feels that bringing attention to the Books of Moses in a public document would be bad PR for Judaism, but we can see why he is so insistent that religion and nationalism cannot be separated. At their very core, these religious teachings include a sweeping political agenda.
To my knowledge these types of passages have never been formally renounced by rabbinical Judaism. The documented Israeli practice of massacring unarmed non-Jewish civilians appears to be inspired directly by these teachings. This sort of conduct is in fact encouraged by rabbinical rulings:
Meanwhile, what Schweid says instead is that the Jewish people are “different,” and that the most difficult task for Jews is explaining to themselves “that we are different.” Once again, he doesn’t say exactly what he means, but it’s not surprising that Jews would have a hard time with this. What he’s saying is partly true and partly a psy-op perpetrated against Jews. We are different from each other in countless ways, of course, but as human beings, we are all of the same species.
Exclusive mating practices over countless generations have indeed accentuated and diminished significant traits and characteristics, while Jewish beliefs and cultural practices are also intended to create isolation from non-Jews, but we are all still part of the same overall human family, regardless of what Schweid or the Talmud has to say about it.
His claim that Jews are “different” is intended, nonetheless, to reinforce the permanent separation of Jews from all other peoples. This is necessary because Deuteronomy is, in essence, a contract — otherwise known as a “covenant” — that is intended to span “a thousand generations.” (see below) The “difference” that Schweid is alluding to is of crucial importance because it determines who is under the contract and who isn’t.
His final sentence contains many euphemisms, but when read in the light of Deuteronomy, the mysterious “activity” that he is referring to takes on a potentially ominous significance:
For only on the basis of a recognition of the difference [i.e., recognition that Jews must separate themselves from all others] is understanding [the ending of conflict] between us [Jews] and our environment [non-Jews] conceivable, and only on this basis is an activity [??] conceivable that will ensure the unity [another word for separation] and survival [over others] of the Jewish people. [He does not mention the survival of anyone else; this does not appear to be a formula for living together in peace with non-Jews.]
The ending of conflict (“understanding”) between Jews and non-Jews can only be achieved in one of two ways:
1) Mutual compromises are established wherein BOTH sides give and take and thereby become identified with a LARGER unity that encompasses both, as in the human family as a whole.
2) One side or the other ceases to have existence or significance.
Of these two possibilities, the second one unfortunately not only offers a better fit with Schweid’s preceding arguments and observations, it is also consistent with the fundamental teachings of Judaism as found in Deuteronomy and the other books of the Torah.
How does all of this relate to 9/11 and questions about Jewish influence in America? At the very least, we must learn from Eliezer Schweid and never make the mistake of thinking that Israel is a “normal” nation, and thereby fail to recognize that “the State of Israel is the state of the entire Jewish people” — many of whom are not found in the “land” of Israel.
The passages below from Deuteronomy (King James version) summarize the seductive worldly promises, embellished with flattery, that were offered to the tribe of Judah (referred to as ”thee”) by “the LORD thy God.” Who exactly is speaking as “the LORD thy God” in these passages is a difficult question to answer. Nonetheless, from all indications, this contract is still in play:
This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it… And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them… Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. …ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people… and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took. …there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us…
For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people… But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand… Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations…
Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them. Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers… Thou shalt be blessed above all people… And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.
If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them? Thou shalt not be afraid of them… Moreover the LORD thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left… be destroyed. Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible. But the LORD thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.
…the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth… And all people of the earth… shall be afraid of thee… …and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail… and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath…