Zionist dating

Content
  • Everything you thought you knew about religious Zionists is wrong
  • What a Muslim American Learned from Zionists
  • Know your Zionist history with new WZO Zionism Calendar
  • Meet The Eligible Israel Haters Of Online Dating
  • ‘Hasbarah’

Well, someone finally asked the religious Zionists. And it turns out we were wrong the whole time. Most of them, if it comes down to it, would likely condone territorial compromise. And nearly half support some form of civil marriage while saying gay couples should be welcomed in Orthodox synagogues.

Everything you thought you knew about religious Zionists is wrong

In this highly personal guest contribution, a British and Jewish blogger reflects on his youth membership of Zionist movements, the recent conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas, and how his relationship with faith changes as he gets older. I’m a nice Jewish boy from North West London. I was brought up in a family that was never particularly religious — we belonged to a Reform synagogue, not an Orthodox one – but where my Jewish identity was considered extremely important, and where support for Israel was an absolute given.[rs_table_products tableName=”Best Dating Websites”]

Not blanket, unquestioning support, but support nonetheless. In , at the age of 16, I spent a summer in Israel with RSY, and two years later took a gap-year there. Half that year was spent on Kibbutz Lotan, one of the two Reform Synagogue affiliated kibbutzim, and the other half was spent on a course known colloquially as ‘Machon’, at the Institute For Youth Leaders From Abroad in Jerusalem, run by an arm of the Israeli state known as the Jewish Agency.

On Machon , along with dozens of other young Jews of my own age from a range of different Zionist youth movements, I received training in youth leadership skills, Jewish history, and what is known in Hebrew as ‘hasbarah’. Hasbarah literally means ‘explaining’, but it has another meaning, which is essentially ‘propaganda’. We were encouraged — and at the age of 18 or 19 we needed no encouragement — to spend much time discussing and arguing the fine points of Zionist ideology and Israeli politics both among ourselves and with members of the other movements.

The left-wingers among us were highly critical of many of Israel’s actions from the War in Lebanon to the whole of the Occupation, and we all argued strenuously that it was a fundamental necessity for Israel to behave ethically at all times; moreover we left-wingers argued that it was of prime importance that we as Zionists stood up and criticised Israel when it did not do so.

However, none of that criticism was ever allowed to cross the red line of rejecting the idea of the Jewish State itself. We did not go so far as to accept the idea that Zionism was racism or that Israel ought not exist — indeed we had special sessions on Machon where we were explicitly taught strategies for arguing against these ideas. The concept of a democratic secular one-state solution for all inhabitants of the Holy Land, under which Jews and Palestinians would be equal citizens in the eyes of the law, was not at any point on the table.

Unlike most of my colleagues on the Machon course, I made a particular point of learning Hebrew, and while in Jerusalem I met and fell in love with Ayelet, an Israeli girl my own age. She was not long out of basic Army training and had taken up a post as a remedial Hebrew teacher at an Israeli Army school. We spoke only in Hebrew and were for a while very much in love, though she thought I was a complete lunatic not just for being a Zionist — among Israelis the word ‘Zionist’ means something somewhat different to its meaning in the wider Jewish community — but also for being on the Machon course at all and for seriously considering moving to Israel permanently: I remember joking then that the most potent form of Zionism was not Religious Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Political Zionism, or Cultural Zionism, all of which we had been taught about in class at Machon, but was rather Sexual Zionism, which we had not been taught about even once.

Looking back, I now understand why hardly anyone, Ayelet included, found my joke funny. As a Jew, despite being born in London, I had and still have the right at any time to move to Israel and immediately take up Israeli citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return. The only reason that I did not do so straight away was that I had a place at Oxford for which, as a state-school applicant, I had worked very hard, and on which I had no intention of missing out.

My plan at the time was to get my degree from Oxford and move to Israel afterwards. Once back in the UK, my obsession with Zionism continued. At Oxford I changed my degree from Maths and Philosophy to Oriental Studies Hebrew , a course comprising Hebrew literature and Jewish history; on the history side I made a special study of Zionism up to It astonished me at the time that my parents were implacably against the idea of me becoming an Israeli, but I was 19 and — like all 19 year olds — knew deeply that I was as right about everything as my parents were wrong about everything.

Life at university was something of a shock for two reasons. The first was that as a state-schooler at Oxford, surrounded by the products of public and private school educations, the trappings of extreme privilege to which most of my contemporaries were so effortlessly accustomed seemed enormously strange and discomforting to me. Despite this I largely fit in well at my college, Balliol, which had a reputation for being very left-wing.

The second shock was that for the first time in my life I was meeting both Jewish and non-Jewish anti-Zionists. I became involved with both the Oxford Jewish Society and the Oxford Israel Society, and ended up spending a lot of time arguing with people about Israel on all sides. With those on my right, I was arguing that Israel was not and had not for some time been behaving ethically, and that it was the absolute duty of anyone who called themselves a Zionist or a supporter of Israel to stand up and call Israel out on these ethical transgressions.

With those on my left I was arguing that while Israel might indeed be as ethically dubious a state as any other state on the planet, nothing that it did in any way impinged on its right to exist as a Jewish State. Many of my left-wing friends at Balliol were utterly shocked to find that I was a Zionist, but I continued to argue passionately for a position on the extreme left of Zionism; I was critical of Israel’s moral transgressions, critical of the Occupation, supportive of the putative Palestinian state, supportive of the idea that Jerusalem should be again partitioned de jure as it already is de facto so it could be both the capital of that Palestinian state as well as the capital of Israel, but at no point did I dare to cross the red line that questioned the legitimacy of the Jewish State itself.

While I was at Balliol, Ariel Sharon was invited to speak at the Oxford Union; this resulted in an extremely busy time for me. I was involved in organising the pro-Zionist counter-demonstration to the anti-Zionist demonstration outside the Union; as a Zionist critical of Israel, I was also involved in ensuring that strong criticisms of Israel in general and Sharon in particular were made during the debate.

Later that evening, as a guest of the L’Chaim Society, an alternative Jewish student organisation then run by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, I ended up having dinner with Sharon, along with thirty or forty other people, and was astonished at how charming he seemed in person, for all that I strongly disagreed with all aspects of his politics. I was also pleasantly shocked by Sharon’s stories of how his closest friends were not other Israelis at all but were rather Palestinians living in the West Bank for whom — he explained – hospitality and personal relationships trumped any notion of tribal hostility.

By , when I left Oxford, things in my personal life had changed. Ayelet, quite reasonably unwilling to spend three years of her early twenties in a long-distance relationship with a complete lunatic, had left me, and I was now romantically involved with Abigail, a rather posh Jewish girl from one of the old established Anglo-Jewish families from before the wave of immigration from Eastern Europe at the beginning of the 20th century that had brought my own great-grandparents to London.

Abigail was about as likely to move to Israel as she was to grow feathers and a beak, and I found myself strongly reconsidering my decision to move there myself. My political position, however, did not change. As a Zionist I felt passionately that it was of prime importance that Israel’s moral transgressions — especially those in the Lebanon war of and the ongoing indefensible occupation of the West Bank and Gaza – be censured. I felt that the Occupation had to end, and end now, and that the Two State Solution was the only way forward.

Since the idea of the right of national self-determination was at the core of my support for Zionism, I found it hard to understand how any Zionist could be against the two state solution. If the Jews should have self-determination in Israel, I argued, surely it is only logical that the Palestinians should also have self-determination in Palestine. I simply could not understand how those Zionists to my right — which was basically all of them — could not see this.

On Jerusalem, I also could not understand the mainstream Zionist position. Having lived there for some time, and being well aware that the city was effectively divided into Jewish West Jerusalem, where you could safely go, and Palestinian East Jerusalem, which was dangerous and to be avoided at all costs, I simply could not grasp any of the stuff about the ‘unification’ of Jerusalem that I had been taught. It might have been unified legally as far as a Zionist was concerned but it certainly wasn’t unified in any way in practice, and it seemed to me only right that a repartitioned East Jerusalem should be the capital of the forthcoming Palestinian state just as much as West Jerusalem should remain the capital of the Israeli state.

I was sure that Palestinians felt just as passionately about Jerusalem as I did myself, and repartition seemed to me to be the just and reasonable answer to this question. This was supposed to be my year to ‘check out’ whether or not I really wanted to go and live in Israel, before I made a final decision. Jerusalem is and was a miserable and tedious place for a young secular man in his early twenties; it soon became clear to me that I did not wish to live there after all, and I began drinking heavily.

Mostly this went on at a bar called ‘Mike’s Place’ run by a burned out Canadian ex-photo-journalist called Mike, and populated almost exclusively by Israeli leftists and members of the international press corps who were old friends of Mike’s. Abigail came to visit, and hated it all even more than I did. I began to make arrangements to go home early. Stefan was horrified by my youthful ideological support of Israel. Life as a photo-journalist specialising in war-zones had inoculated him against all forms of ideology.

As far as he was concerned, all sides committing atrocities, everywhere, were all as bad as each other. It was his job as a journalist to get close to those atrocities in order to document them so that the rest of the world could see. Of course they wouldn’t — he was all too aware of this – but it was his job nonetheless. I’d long split up with Abigail. I was still in London. I’d had two failed careers, first as a freelance journalist, and then as a computer programmer.

Both had gone wrong as I’d also been trying to pursue music in a serious way; there are only so many hours in a day and as a result of pursuing multiple career goals I’d made myself seriously ill twice and just survived a complete nervous breakdown. I was at last pursuing music full-time and, as part of this, had finally received my London Underground busking licence.

I’d finally recorded and released an album of original music, not that anyone had noticed. At least, I felt, I was now on the right path. I had by this time met Daphna Baram, an Israeli journalist and Guardian contributor effectively in exile in London for her anti-Zionist views. Despite our differences of opinion over Israel we had become close friends, and spent many nights staying up late arguing in a mixture of English and Hebrew over the fine points of whether or not Achad Ha-am, the founder of Cultural Zionism, would have supported the actions of the current Israeli state, or whether the position of the Zionist youth movement Hashomer HaTzair, that British Mandate Palestine should be formed into a bi-national state for both Jews and Palestinians, had any relevance today.

Daphna was the first to put to me directly the astonishing proposition that the best solution for the Israel-Palestine problem was a single genuinely democratic state in which all citizens were treated equally regardless of ethnic origin. Currently, that is not the case. While the state of Israel makes just as reasonable a claim to be a democracy as, say, Belarus or Russia, the fact is that Jewish and non-Jewish citizens are not treated equally.

It is true that there are Israeli Arab Knesset members and that Israeli Arabs can vote, but it is also true that there are huge differences in the way that Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews are treated by the state, ranging from whether or not they are required to join the army at the age of 18 to whether or not their home town or village gets a reasonable annual budget to cover municipal requirements.

It is painfully obvious from available statistics that Israeli Arab areas get substantially less support from the Israeli state than equivalent size Jewish settlements, and that in general, while Israeli Arabs may not offically be second-class citizens of Israel, that is certainly what they are in practice. Then, in late , Operation Cast Lead began.

Having previously largely withdrawn from Gaza in though still keeping it surrounded and effectively cut off from the West Bank , Israel began in December to bombard it indiscriminately, in the name of ending rocket fire into Israel from within the Strip. For the life of me, I could not see how this was supposed to work. I could not see any way of defending this action. As the number of Palestinian casualties grew — far out of proportion to the number of casualties on the Israeli side – it just got worse and worse.

For the first time in my adult life I began wondering whether the Jewish State was actually worth defending at all on any level if this was the price. I was watching a blatant and brutal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, utterly disproportionate to the attacks that had provoked it, which had in turn been provoked by earlier Israeli incursions, in an endless back-and-forth cycle, in order to defend what?

An Israeli State that would allow me — born in London — to become a citizen at a moment’s notice, while Palestinian friends of friends actually born in the Holy Land itself could never become citizens of anything anywhere? Exactly what convoluted justification would stand that up? I couldn’t do it any more. On Machon, I’d had training in how to argue against the proposition that Zionism was racism, but no training in how to argue in defence of the indiscriminate massacre of civilian children.

That one hadn’t come up. It looked terribly plausible. It was horribly embarrassing and deeply painful, but it began to seem to me an awful lot as if Achad Ha-am, founder of Cultural Zionism, and a somewhat flawed but deeply ethical character, would have himself been implacably against anything calling itself a Jewish State that behaved like this.

Around the same time, I took up the saxophone, as part of an effort to give up smoking, and had a one-off lesson with the best local saxophonist I could find, who happened to be another Israeli exile by the name of Gilad Atzmon. This was an incredible stroke of luck, as without exaggeration I can promise you that Gilad is one of the best saxophonists alive anywhere in the world; he is also a lovely guy in person and a fantastic music teacher.

Additionally, he is highly politically active as an anti-Zionist, and is considered so extreme that most other anti-Zionists consider him totally beyond the pale; he is widely accused by both anti-Zionists and Zionists alike of actual anti-semitism. This is of course utter rubbish. It was clear to Gilad from the second he met me that I was Jewish — we even discussed the fact during my first pre-lesson meeting – and had he been a real anti-semite he would never have agreed to teach a Jew to play the saxophone.

His views are, nonetheless, extreme; for example he is against the concept of secular Jewish anti-Zionist organisations, and believes them all, along with any concept of secular Jewish identity, to be a stalking horse for Zionism itself. This stems from his deeply philosophical approach to the whole Israel-Palestine question, and his view that any secular expression of Jewish identity is inherently somehow supremacist; this has led him — as I understand it – to hold that any kind of Jewish identity itself is deeply flawed outside of the religious context.

I do not agree with Gilad on that. I do believe that it is possible to be a secular Jew with a positive Jewish identity that does not in any way believe in Jewish supremacy. I do not even agree with his view that Zionism is inherently racist. For example, the pre position of the Zionist youth movement Hashomer HaTzair, which argued, as Zionists, for a secular binational state to be shared equally between Jews and Palestinians, puts paid to that.

In the s Martin Buber , a humanist philosopher who had absolutely no truck with racism, developed a branch of Zionism centered politically around the concept of a binational state, and sadly, like Hashomer HaTzair, got nowhere.

Zionism is the nationalist movement of the Jewish people that supports the re- establishment of .. The official beginning of the construction of the New Yishuv in Palestine is usually dated to the arrival of the Bilu group in , who commenced. Zionist Dating. As the disclaimers preceding. Do you want to set a world record Dating you Officially Amazing A total of world record a new speed-dating.

When I moved to a new, Midwestern city to attend graduate school, I did what many young, single people do: I joined a dating website. After a few weeks, I began to notice that the men who messaged me tended to fit a certain type:

Zionism is a religious and political effort that brought thousands of Jews from around the world back to their ancient homeland in the Middle East and reestablished Israel as the central location for Jewish identity. While some critics call Zionism an aggressive and discriminatory ideology, the Zionist movement has successfully established a Jewish homeland in the nation of Israel.

In this highly personal guest contribution, a British and Jewish blogger reflects on his youth membership of Zionist movements, the recent conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas, and how his relationship with faith changes as he gets older. I’m a nice Jewish boy from North West London. I was brought up in a family that was never particularly religious — we belonged to a Reform synagogue, not an Orthodox one – but where my Jewish identity was considered extremely important, and where support for Israel was an absolute given.

Know your Zionist history with new WZO Zionism Calendar

Zionism, between the real and the ideal. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analysis from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World. When was Theodore Herzl born?

Meet The Eligible Israel Haters Of Online Dating

Zionism Hebrew: Until , the primary goals of Zionism were the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, ingathering of the exiles , and liberation of Jews from the antisemitic discrimination and persecution that they experienced during their diaspora. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in , Zionism continues primarily to advocate on behalf of Israel and to address threats to its continued existence and security. A religious variety of Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity defined as adherence to religious Judaism, opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies, and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be a majority nation in their own state. Advocates of Zionism view it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation of a persecuted people residing as minorities in a variety of nations to their ancestral homeland. The term “Zionism” is derived from the word Zion Hebrew: Throughout eastern Europe in the late 19th century, numerous grassroots groups were promoting the national resettlement of the Jews in their homeland, as well as the revitalization and cultivation of the Hebrew language. These groups were collectively called the ” Lovers of Zion ” and were seen to encounter a growing Jewish movement toward assimilation.

How probable is it to get ardent Zionists and pro-Palestinians to not just talk to one another, but love and respect one another?

Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Seeking a ‘pure relationship’? Israeli Religious-Zionist singles looking for love and marriage.

‘Hasbarah’

Клушар, похоже, не расслышал. Глаза его отсутствующе смотрели в пространство. – Странное дело, ей-богу, все эти буквы – ни на один язык не похоже. – Может быть, японский? – предположил Беккер. – Определенно. – Так вы успели его рассмотреть. – Господи. Когда я опустился на колени, чтобы помочь ему, этот человек стал совать мне пальцы прямо в лицо.

Он хотел отдать кольцо. Какие же страшные были у него руки. – Вот тут-то вы и рассмотрели его кольцо. Глаза Клушара расширились.

Как всегда, одна кабинка и один писсуар. Пользуются ли писсуаром в дамском туалете -неважно, главное, что сэкономили на лишней кабинке. Беккер с отвращением оглядел комнату. Грязь, в раковине мутная коричневатая вода. Повсюду разбросаны грязные бумажные полотенца, лужи воды на полу.

Соши показала на экран. Все сгрудились вокруг нее и прочитали текст: …распространено заблуждение, будто на Нагасаки была сброшена плутониевая бомба. На самом деле в ней использовался уран, как и в ее сестрице, сброшенной на Хиросиму. – Но… – Сьюзан еле обрела дар речи.  – Если оба элемента – уран, то как мы найдем различие между .

Turista, – усмехнулся. И прошептал чуть насмешливо: – Llamo un medico. Вызвать доктора. Беккер поднял глаза на усыпанное родинками старческое лицо. – No, gracias. Estoy bien. Человек смерил его сердитым взглядом: – Pues sientate.

Как и многие другие сотрудники АНБ, он использовал разработанную агентством программу Мозговой штурм – безопасный способ разыгрывать сценарий типа Что, если?. на защищенном от проникновения компьютере. Мозговой штурм был своего рода разведывательным экспериментом, который его создатели называли Симулятором причин и следствий. Сначала он предназначался для использования в ходе избирательных кампаний как способ создания в режиме реального времени моделей данной политической среды.

Загруженная громадным количеством информации программа создавала паутину относительных величин – гипотетическую модель взаимодействия политических переменных, включая известных политиков, их штабы, личные взаимоотношения, острые проблемы, мотивации, отягощенные такими факторами, как секс, этническая принадлежность, деньги и власть. Пользователь имел возможность создать любую гипотетическую ситуацию, и Мозговой штурм предсказывал, как эта ситуация повлияет на среду.

Коммандер относился к этой программе с религиозным трепетом, но использовал ее не в политических целях: она служила ему для расчета времени, оценки информации и схематического отображения ситуации, выработки сложных стратегических решений и своевременного выявления слабых мест.

Взрывной волной Сьюзан внесло в кабинет Стратмора, и последним, что ей запомнилось, был обжигающий жар. ГЛАВА 106 К окну комнаты заседаний при кабинете директора, расположенной высоко над куполом шифровалки, прильнули три головы. От раздавшегося взрыва содрогнулся весь комплекс Агентства национальной безопасности. Лиланд Фонтейн, Чед Бринкерхофф и Мидж Милкен в безмолвном ужасе смотрели на открывшуюся их глазам картину.

Тридцатью метрами ниже горел купол шифровалки. Поликарбонатная крыша еще была цела, но под ее прозрачной оболочкой бушевало пламя. Внутри клубились тучи черного дыма.

Global Zionism Exposed: Fourth Beast Risingp{text-indent: 1.5em;}

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *