I recently had a short chat about whether it is appropriate for an Israeli Arab to define themselves as Palestinian. The statement that I must be “respectful” was what ended the conversation. I respect others’ opinions but when the debate is one about my right to life, a word of greater nuance than “respect” is needed. Look up synonyms for “respect” and you receive words such as “admiration, esteem, reverence and veneration” none of which applies in what is a debate over the right of Jews to exercise sovereignty in our homeland and the right to an identity that is NOT defined by others.
These are life and death issues.
So, let’s delve into this issue.
First, let us look at three concepts: Replacement theology, Supersessionism and Chosenness.
Replacement theology states that God gave his ‘word’ to the Jews, but they changed or reinterpreted that ‘word’ and in doing so lost God’s favour. One of the problems of Replacement theology is that Muslims say exactly the same about Christianity. They state that because Christians re- or misinterpreted God’s word, Islam supersedes Christianity.
According to Copilot “In Jewish tradition, chosenness refers to the belief that the Jewish people have a unique and special relationship with God.” That relationship creates a covenant that is imbued with reciprocal responsibilities.
The simplest way to explain this is to note that the Ten Commandments are the responsibilities of all Jews, but non-Jews have only six to fulfil – what are referred to as the Six Noahide Laws (honouring your father and mother, you shall not murder, not commit adultery, not steal, not bear false witness against your neighbour, and not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour.)
Replacement Theology creates a new dynamic that makes Christians the new Chosen People. Problematically for Christians, Supersessionism creates a similar dynamic except that it makes Muslims the new Chosen People.
There is one further issue that must be examined and that is Universalism verses Particularity. Theoretically, both Islam and Christianity, as religions, are the former while Judaism as a faith, is the latter. It is a weapon that is often employed against Jews and normally goes along with being “stiff-necked or stubborn.” i.e. the perfection of human existence is defined by the embrace of the superior faith and not acknowledging this fact (and converting to the ONLY righteous faith) is both exceptionally insulting and unmistakable evidence of the defective nature of the individual who fails to convert.
The problem is that both Islam and Christianity are missionary faiths which means, in contemporary vernacular: they are imperialistic, colonialist, settler faiths that may slaughter or enslave anyone who fails to recognise their exclusive Chosenness. It means that both missionary faiths are not Universal faiths but Universal EXCLUSIVE faiths. It helps to explain why infighting is also inherently a requirement of fighting non-believers.
A particularistic faith (Judaism) devotes itself to maintaining a cohesive communal structure that does not impact others. I do not need to demand that others either believe as I do, or to adhere to my moral code. I would love that many more people embraced Judaism, but I do not actively promote or penalise others if they do not. If a Jew believes in concepts like Soul, Heaven, and Hell - we do not view anyone as defective if they do not have a “Jewish Soul” or, that they are destined to spend eternity in hell if they do not believe as I do.
Judaism believes that all of us, irrespective of race, religion, or colour, can go to Heaven when we die because, as a particularistic religion, the six Noahide commandments are what morally unites all of humanity and therefore, not being Jewish is not a life-or-death issue.
Only a universalistic exclusive faith prejudges others, interpreting Chosenness as closed. And throughout history, such a toxic belief has encouraged its adherents to discriminate against, persecute or kill its opponents (who in any case are doomed to burn in hell for eternity because they do not have a Christian / Muslim Soul).
Of course, all of this is theoretical. Not every Muslim or Christian admits to or actively supports an exclusionary, potentially genocidal religious identity. Similarly, sadly, being Jewish does not create an automatic Jewish obligation of holiness towards all of humanity. We have Jewish thieves and Jewish murderers too.
It does sometimes seem however that the greatest crime a Jew can commit is that being human we are fallible. We are imperfect. Too often, we are greedy and even amoral. Just like human beings of all faiths. The conflict between religiously identifying and acting out of self-interest that conflicts with ethics is a universal human conundrum.
Empowerment is corrupting but it is also necessary for survival.
The Palestinian National Council, HAMAS, and secular supporters of both groups (principally radical – left wing and green) subscribe to either the One State solution or to the eliminationist Islamisation of Israel-Palestine. Infidel genocide is theologically sound. It is why Muslim and Secular supporters across the globe in protesting on the streets of Europe, North America and beyond celebrate 10/7 and produce such ignoble epithets as “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Arab” and which is why they call for “Globalizing the Intifada”.
It is Replacement Theology and Supersessionism provided with a contemporary patina. It is never about justice or equality. Like Nazism, Communism and Fascism it is taking a theology of exclusion and eliminationism into the secular sphere of politics and society in order to elevate it, providing it with a secular mandate and ensuring everyone is able to subscribe to it. It is relentless and it is brutal. It is fuelled by intolerance, hate and denialism. It brooks no constitutional or legal restraints but will always accuse its enemies of attempting to shackle its rights. The threat of, or actual intimidation and violence are core behaviours.
The useful idiots that support them are often the first to be killed when they gain power.
Four decades ago, I took a course at a college. It was on Spanish Jewish literature of one thousand years ago. The allegedly Jewish teacher had a BA and an MA in completely unrelated subjects. Her PhD subject of study was Sephardi Jewish women in the USA. Commenting on one poem, she equivocated use of a Mikva (a Jewish ritual bath) with Jewish tightness with money. I responded by providing examples showing that medieval Christianity was not known for its adherence to concepts such as personal cleanliness and good hygiene. It would have offended this Aunty Tom if I had applied her prejudice to once in a lifetime events such as baptism.
Academic ignorance is often a choice as well as a career path. It bleeds into society, and it infests what is taught as well as eventually deciding what can be taught.
So, let us look at the current New-Palestinians and their supporters. Who are they and what do they “believe”?
They usually begin Jewish history in “Palestine,” never in Canaan nor Judah, Judea, Samaria, or the ancient Kingdom of Israel.
They usually start Jewish history with 1917 so they can discard 3,400 years of Jewish history in Israel.
They grant exclusive refugee status to Muslims (and occasionally when it suits their anti-Jewish narrative) to Christians but not to Jews.
They demand a Muslim right of immigration to anywhere in the world but bind Jews to places that define them as inferior and worthy only of persecution and death.
They magnanimously grant Muslim immigrants to Israel with hereditary indigenous status and then dismiss Jewish indigeneity in order to build a narrative that is exclusionary and eliminationist.
They warn Israel against defending itself when it is attacked by Islamic fundamentalists who have openly declared their aim is to commit genocide against Jews throughout the world.
And then they damn us when we defend ourselves.
If they condemn antisemitism, they will always add-on their abhorrence of Islamophobia, even though since 10/7 over 50% of all physical attacks on Jews are by Muslims.
They have no issue with Islam as a faith of conquest but condemn the Jews for their decolonizing (Zionist) movement and demand we distance ourselves from it.
Finally, just as in previous generations of nazis and communists they deplatform us so that when we are silenced, we cannot defend ourselves from the lies they tell and their slanders against us.
These are the people that now say (not so innocently) “but don’t the Palestinians deserve justice?” and then justify mass rape, torture, and murder because it is against “Zionists.” And the selective human rights community cheers them on.
So, Israeli Arab or Palestinian Arab? To be Palestinian, or more accurately, to be the “New Palestinians” (those who have Replaced or Superseded the previous, Old - Jewish Palestinians) is to re-write history to exclude Jews and Judaism from history and to carve out a new history that justifies a new Shoah, a new Holocaust.
If this Israeli “Palestinian” Arab decides that she / he is a Palestinian to the exclusion of anything Israeli then he / she is embracing a narrative that is exclusionary, racist, religiously bigoted, and potentially genocidal.
During the “old” Cold War the favoured “bogeyman” was a fifth column that was inevitably communist but for the antisemitic (anti-Jewish) radical right, quite often synonymous with Jews.
Today’s Cold War is being fought between people and nations who are fearful of Russia, China, North Korea, and certain Muslim nations (such as Iran) on the one side and the Western World on the other, but also including Muslim nations that straddle both sides. A coalition of radical Left, Muslim supersessionists and “so called” progressive Greens will move between any side that gives them visibility and power. Anti-Zionism that usually cascades into anti-Judaism is a badge of honour and a pre-requisite for membership of the club.
Supporting the Palestinian “cause” is what binds all the sides because it is comforting in its simplicity. It bridges the chasm between the sides. All that is required is to follow a narrative that ignores all inconvenient truths.
Respecting an identity that negates mine is an ask too far.