The French care more for themselves than for the British. But: since when care for ourselves has become care at the expense of others? The French or Italians care for themselves at the expense of whom: Germans?

We know Americans took care of themselves at the expense of the Injuns. Hitler took care of his own at the expense of Jews and Gypsies. But at least he was in his own land. We have Zionist taking care of themselves not in their own land but like the Americans in a land belonging to someone else at the expense of the indigenous peopels!

It boggles the mind that outsiders like Americans in America and Zionists in Palestine dictate terms to the original inhabitants of the land. Instead of Palestinians granting or not granting right of Statehood to Zionists, it is the Zionists who are in brutal, uncompromising, unforgiving, ruthless, Naziesque control!
But let us see who the Palestinians really are.
It is said in the Bible (the source of so much evil in the world starting with Anti-Semitism) that in 2,000 BC the land that came to be known as Palestine was occupied by a people we call pagans. That is: they had many gods and goddesses. Then came the Hebrews. Or so we are told by no-one less than God. They wrote books and were known as monotheists when they were in fact henotheists. It is not clear if they ever became monotheist. However, with the coming of Christianity some of the Hebrews and many pagans converted to the new religion. Then came Islam and most people, Hebrews, Christians and pagans adopted Islam. Though they were conquered by the Arabs (at least initially), there never were Arab settlers. And so today’s Palestinians are Muslims and speak Arabic, but they are not Arabs. They are Canaanites or Philistines, Hebrews and so on but not Arabs. In fact many of these Palestinians are original Hebrews who converted to Islam. As such they have greater rights, nay, exclusive right to Palestine than Khazars or Ashkenazi refugees from Europe and Russia. But we live in an upside-down world were what Hitler did is abhorrent but what Zionists do is self-defense. Why could Hitler NOT free his ancestral land from the Khazars while Zionists can drive out indigenous peoples from their ancestral land? If there is a God Israel cannot endure.

The French care more for themselves than for the British. But: since when care for ourselves has become at the expense of others? Do the French or Italian care for themselves at the expense of whom: Germans?

We know Americans took care of themselves at the expense of the Injuns. Hitler took care of his own at the expense of Jews and Gypsies. But at least he was in his own land. And now we have Zionist taking care of themselves not in their own land but like the Americans in a land belonging to someone else!

It boggles the mind that outsiders like Americans in America and Zionists in Palestine dictate terms to the original inhabitants of the land. Instead of Palestinians grating or not granting right to Statehood to Zionists, it is the Zionists who are in brutal, uncompromising, unforgiving, ruthless, Naziesque control!
But let us see who the Palestinians are.
It is almost certain that in 2,000 BC the land that came to be known as Palestine was occupied by a people we call pagans. That is: they had many gods and goddesses. Then came the Hebrews. Or so we surmise. They wrote books and were known as monotheists when they were in fact henotheists. It is not clear if they ever became monotheist. However, with the coming of Christianity some of the Hebrews and many pagans converted to the new religion. Then came Islam and most people, Hebrews, Christians and pagans adopted Islam. Though they were conquered by the Arabs (at least initially), there never were Arab settlers. And so today’s Palestinians are Muslims and speak Arabic, they are not Arabs. They are Canaanites or Philistines, Hebrews and so on but not Arabs. In fact many of these Palestinians are original Hebrews who converted to Islam. As such they have a greater rights, nay, exclusive right to Palestine than Khazars or Ashkenazi refugees from Europe and Russia. But we live in an upside-down world were what Hitler did is abhorrent but what Zionists do is self-defense. Why could Hitler NOT free his ancestral land from the Khazars while Zionists can drive out indigenous peoples from their ancestral land? If there is a God Israel cannot endure.

Before we swallow the pill that there are "Jews" and then there are "universalist Jews," it's worth exploring whether Judaism is even divorced from universalism in the first place. Considering that there exists the Noahide Laws, which allow gentiles to fulfill their relationship with God–and on the other hand–that Jews are a chosen people, there is clearly more subtlety to this issue than Gorids affords. To those who wish to make false separations and divisions, subtlety is a tool gathering dust.

Understanding that Judaism by nature tends to resist black vs. white paradigms (ala halakhic exegesis), we see that Universalism doesn't mean, as Gordis contends, that universalist Jews are "unable to distinguish ourselves from the mass of humanity," unable "to celebrate our own origins," or regard our "own homeland." Those values can be expressed in a number of different ways and don't exclude a belief in the equality of man.

There is a theme among writers in the Jewish world (of which I, shamefully, have used before) to create a false polarity and then group part of the community on "our" side (good) and "their" side (bad).

Instead, the Jewish world exists in shades of gray because the issues of our community (Israel, diaspora identity, assimilation, etc) exist in a similar spectrum of tones.

Gordis, in a moralizing tone that seems to be associated with the poorest quality teachers, Rabbis and parents, tells us that the consequence of our "universalism" is that "even an expression of gut-level love for Israelis more than for their enemies is impossible."

That's a stark accusation that's worth deconstructing for a moment. Gordis believes that the "universalist Jews (read: "them") don't love Israel–"from the gut"–as much as he does. Those are extraordinary words to apply to Jewish people who might otherwise profess a Zionistic viewpoint but also think all people have the same value under God. If those are actually mutually exclusive, Gordis doesn't say how in this article.

Exemplary of this false comparison are Gordis' remarks about Rabbi Sharon Brous, a woman who clearly is able to celebrate her "own homeland." He attacks Brous' sympathy for the suffering of Palestinians because it occurs in the same paragraph as her expression of solidarity with "the Israeli people…" who she goes onto say "have for years endured a barrage of rocket attacks targeting innocents" finally concluding that Israelis "…have the right and the obligation to defend themselves."

If Brous' remarks are the best example of Gordis' claim that "even an expression of gut-level love for Israelis more than for their enemies is impossible," than we can see a very narrow expression of Judaism and Zionism originating with the author–one the precludes the vast majority of American and Israeli Jews who call for a two-state solution to end Israeli and Palestinian suffering.

Lastly, Gordis' attack on Brous' remarks about having sympathy for Palestinians begs the most obvious retort to Gordis' whole article: The IDF's Gaza operation was called Pillar of Defense, an homage to the Cloud Pillar that protected and defended the Jews as they trekked through the desert. Considering that reality, I cannot but help of think of another story from the Exodus, related to us in the Talmud Sanhedrin, 39b:

At the death of the vanquished Egyptians, the Jewish people took up instruments and broke into song. We are told that the angels in heaven also broke out in revelry.

But the almighty chastised the angels and said,

"How can you sing when my people are dying?"

Before we swallow the pill that there are "Jews" and then there are "universalist Jews," it's worth exploring whether Judaism is even divorced from universalism in the first place. Considering that there exists the Noahide Laws, which allow gentiles to fulfill their relationship with God–and on the other hand–that Jews are a chosen people, there is clearly more subtlety to this issue than Gorids affords. To those who wish to make false separations and divisions, subtlety is a tool gathering dust.

Understanding that Judaism by nature tends to resist black vs. white paradigms (ala halakhic exegesis), we see that Universalism doesn't mean, as Gordis contends, that universalist Jews are "unable to distinguish ourselves from the mass of humanity," unable "to celebrate our own origins," or regard our "own homeland." Those values can be expressed in a number of different ways and don't exclude a belief in the equality of man.

There is a theme among writers in the Jewish world (of which I, shamefully, have used before) to create a false polarity and then group part of the community on "our" side (good) and "their" side (bad).

Instead, the Jewish world exists in shades of gray because the issues of our community (Israel, diaspora identity, assimilation, etc) exist in a similar spectrum of tones.

Gordis, in a moralizing tone that seems to be associated with the poorest quality teachers, Rabbis and parents, tells us that the consequence of our "universalism" is that "even an expression of gut-level love for Israelis more than for their enemies is impossible."

That's a stark accusation that's worth deconstructing for a moment. Gordis believes that the "universalist Jews (read: "them") don't love Israel–"from the gut"–as much as he does. Those are extraordinary words to apply to Jewish people who might otherwise profess a Zionistic viewpoint but also think all people have the same value under God. If those are actually mutually exclusive, Gordis doesn't say how in this article.

Exemplary of this false comparison are Gordis' remarks about Rabbi Sharon Brous, a woman who clearly is able to celebrate her "own homeland." He attacks Brous' sympathy for the suffering of Palestinians because it occurs in the same paragraph as her expression of solidarity with "the Israeli people…" who she goes onto say "have for years endured a barrage of rocket attacks targeting innocents" finally concluding that Israelis "…have the right and the obligation to defend themselves."

If Brous' remarks are the best example of Gordis' claim that "even an expression of gut-level love for Israelis more than for their enemies is impossible," than we can see a very narrow expression of Judaism and Zionism originating with the author–one the precludes the vast majority of American and Israeli Jews who call for a two-state solution to end Israeli and Palestinian suffering.

Lastly, Gordis' attack on Brous' remarks about having sympathy for Palestinians begs the most obvious retort to Gordis' whole article: The IDF's Gaza operation was called Pillar of Defense, an homage to the Cloud Pillar that protected and defended the Jews as they trekked through the desert. Considering that reality, I cannot but help of think of another story from the Exodus, related to us in the Talmud Sanhedrin, 39b:

At the death of the vanquished Egyptians, the Jewish people took up instruments and broke into song. We are told that the angels in heaven also broke out in revelry.

But the almighty chastised the angels and said,

"How can you sing when my people are dying?"

Before we swallow the pill that there are "Jews" and then there are "universalist Jews," it's worth exploring whether Judaism is even divorced from universalism in the first place. Considering that there exists the Noahide Laws which allow gentiles to fulfill their relationship with God–and on the other hand–that Jews are a chosen people, there is clearly more subtlety to this issue than Gorids affords. To those who which to make false separations and divisions, subtlety is a tool gathering dust.

Understanding that Judaism by nature tends to resist black vs. white paradigms (ala halakhic exegesis), we see that Universalism doesn't mean, as Gordis contends, that universalist Jews are "unable to distinguish ourselves from the mass of humanity," unable "to celebrate our own origins," or our "own homeland." Those values can be expressed in a number of different way and don't exclude a belief in the equality of man.

There is a theme among writers in the Jewish world (of which I, shamefully, have used before) to create a false polarity and then group part of the community on "our" side (good) and "their" side (bad).

Instead, the Jewish world exists in shades of gray because the issues of our community (Israel, diaspora identity, assimilation, etc) exist in a similar spectrum of tones.

Gordis, in a moralizing tone that seems to be associated with the poorest quality teachers, Rabbis and parents, tells us that the consequence of our "universalism" is that "even an expression of gut-level love for Israelis more than for their enemies is impossible."

That's a stark accusation that's worth deconstructing for a moment. Gordis believes that the "universalist Jews (read: "them") don't love Israel–"from the gut"–as much as he does. Those are extraordinary words to apply to Jewish people who might otherwise profess a Zionistic viewpoint but also think all people have the same value under God. If those are actually mutually exclusive, Gordis doesn't say how in this article.

Exemplary of this false comparison are Gordis' remarks about Rabbi Sharon Brous, a woman who clearly is able to celebrate her "own homeland." He attacks Brous' sympathy for the suffering of Palestinians because it occurs in the same paragraph as her expression of solidarity with "the Israeli people…" who she goes onto say "have for years endured a barrage of rocket attacks targeting innocents" finally concluding that Israelis "…have the right and the obligation to defend themselves."

If Brous' remarks are the best example of Gordis' claim that "even an expression of gut-level love for Israelis more than for their enemies is impossible," than we can see a very narrow expression of Judaism and Zionism originating with the author–one the precludes the vast majority of American and Israeli Jews who call for a two-state solution to end Israeli and Palestinian suffering.

Lastly, Gordis' attack on Brous' remarks about having sympathy for Palestinians begs the most obvious retort to Gordis' whole article: The IDF's Gaza operation was called Pillar of Defense, an homage to the Cloud Pillar that protected and defended the Jews as they trekked through the desert. Considering that reality, I cannot but help of think of another story from the Exodus, related to us in the Talmud Sanhedrin, 39b:

At the death of the vanquished Egyptians, the Jewish people took up instruments and broke into song. We are told that the angels in heaven also broke out in revelry.

But the almighty chastised the angels and said,

"How can you sing when my people are dying?"

Before we swallow the pill that there are "Jews" and then there are "universalist Jews," it's worth exploring whether Judaism is even divorced from universalism in the first place. Considering that there exists the Noahide Laws which allow gentiles to fulfill their relationship with God–and on the other hand–that Jews are a chosen people, there is clearly more subtlety to this issue than Gorids affords. To those who which to make false separations and divisions, subtlety is a tool gathering dust.

Understanding that Judaism by nature tends to resist black vs. white paradigms (ala halakhic exegesis), we see that Universalism doesn't mean, as Gordis contends, that universalist Jews are "unable to distinguish ourselves from the mass of humanity," unable "to celebrate our own origins," or our "own homeland." Those values can be expressed in a number of different way and don't exclude a belief in the equality of man.

There is a theme among writers in the Jewish world (of which I, shamefully, have used before) to create a false polarity and then group part of the community on "our" side (good) and "their" side (bad).

Instead, the Jewish world exists in shades of gray because the issues of our community (Israel, diaspora identity, assimilation, etc) exist in a similar spectrum of tones.

Gordis, in a moralizing tone that seems to be associated with the poorest quality teachers, Rabbis and parents, tells us that the consequence of our "universalism" is that "even an expression of gut-level love for Israelis more than for their enemies is impossible."

That's a stark accusation that's worth deconstructing for a moment. Gordis believes that the "universalist Jews (read: "them") don't love Israel–"from the gut"–as much as he does. Those are extraordinary words to apply to Jewish people who might otherwise profess a Zionistic viewpoint but also think all people have the same value under God. If those are actually mutually exclusive, Gordis doesn't say how in this article.

Exemplary of this false comparison are Gordis' remarks about Rabbi Sharon Brous, a woman who clearly is able to celebrate her "own homeland." He attacks Brous' sympathy for the suffering of Palestinians because it occurs in the same paragraph as her expression of solidarity with "the Israeli people…" who she goes onto say "have for years endured a barrage of rocket attacks targeting innocents" finally concluding that Israelis "…have the right and the obligation to defend themselves."

If Brous' remarks are the best example of Gordis' claim that "even an expression of gut-level love for Israelis more than for their enemies is impossible," than we can see a very narrow expression of Judaism and Zionism originating with the author–one the precludes the vast majority of American and Israeli Jews who call for a two-state solution to end Israeli and Palestinian suffering.

Lastly, Gordis' attack on Brous' remarks about having sympathy for Palestinians begs the most obvious retort to Gordis' whole article: The IDF's Gaza operation was called Pillar of Defense, an homage to the Cloud Pillar that protected and defended the Jews as they trekked through the desert. Considering that reality, I cannot but help of think of another story from the Exodus, related to us in the Talmud Sanhedrin, 39b:

At the death of the vanquished Egyptians, the Jewish people took up instruments and broke into song. We are told that the angels in heaven also broke out in revelry.

But the almighty chastised the angels and said,

"How can you sing when my people are dying?"