Skip to main content

Bloomberg's "Jewish State": bad idea for Israel, Palestine, and the Mideast

Reaction to Bloomberg's paper “Israel Palestine still can find way to divide into two states,” Tri-City Herald, January 9, 2014, page A-7.

Bloomberg needs to help us change the conversation.

In his guest editorial to "The Tri City Herald" he states: “It ought not to be a big deal for Palestinian leaders to acknowledge that Israel is Jewish State.”

What a disgusting idea.

Changing the conversation

Inciting racism and religious bigotry will not accomplish stability or peace. And make no mistake, declaring Israel a "Jewish State" institutionalizes both of the above.

There is (as if nobody has noticed), a difference between, say, a Jewish homeland and a Jewish State.

Israel is not a Jewish state now, nor will it ever be. Israel is a modern, secular state, with religious and non-religious people: liberal Jews, Orthodox Jews, Baha'i, atheists, Muslims, Christians and other, and yes, Palestinians.

A nation governed by one religion or race is not, and can never be, a free country: No purely Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu or Atheistic states for me, thanks.

By definition, a “Jewish State,” is one based on racism and religious bigotry. (The term "Jew" defines people of a particular ancestry and religious faith.) 

We should not expect those living in the Middle East to create a mini-American system, but until Palestinians and Jews can invent their own version of a “Land of the Free,” all treaties are but paths to oppression, political unrest and probably war --  not peace.

Bloomberg's opinion piece missed the mark this time: It is well past time to change the conversation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

8 Facts About the Circle of Fifths that you May Not Already Know

I love all child refugees but … where will the money come from? Part III

Quote from a Facebook friend:

“Much as my heart breaks for the children who want to come here because circumstances are better … circumstances will not be better here if we allow more people to live here than we can afford to support.”

So says one of my Facebook friends.

Green Party is not red, is not blue, is not the oligarchy.

Green (Is not Redis notBlue)Kennewick, Washington 
Political Opinion
By Frank Ellsworth Lockwood

Some people have been pushing the notion that if you are a member of the Green Party you should vote for a Democratic, but there is another side to this argument. If you are a Green, then you are no more a Democrat than a Republican is.
Green is for things that the Red and Blue oppose: While Green Party is for peaceful coexistence, Republicans and Democrats have supported wars-for-profit for all of my life. (I am 75; they will not be changing any time soon.)

Green is for live and let live, while Red and Blue are about greed and conniving, and this is no exaggeration when both of the above have always supported the overthrow of democratically elected socialist governments, replacing them with puppet governments, dictators and tyrants who practiced suppression-for-profit.

Green is for racial and economic equality as well as for recognition of tribal rights. Our 2016 Presidential candidate, Jill …