Full Version: To Be or Not to Be
The Chosen by the late rabbi, Chaim Potock, is one of my all-time favorite books. The book was made into a movie with Rod Steiger playing the part of the Hassidic rabbi. I’ve read the book and seen the video version of the movie. Here is an amazon.com synopsis of the film.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009WVS...lance&n=130
The state of Israel came into being in the aftermath of WWII.
Questions for Debate:
1. Was the creation of Israel appropriate, as seen by the Zionists or inappropriate as some of the Hassidic people thought?
2. Was the forming of the state of Israel in a historical biblical setting a good choice or should it have been created in a less hostile location? If you favor an alternate setting, where would it have been?
Note: This is purely an academic debate. Israel exists, where it exists. In my opinion it has a perfect right to self-preservation through the military up to the point that it becomes an aggressor. I have no idea where defense stops and aggression begins, but this is not what this debate is about, so please don’t take it there.
QUOTE
Plot Synopsis: Two Jewish teenagers in 1940s New York meet as playground rivals. After accidentally injuring Reuven, Danny calls on him at home to apologize. Their wariness turns to fascination and close friendship as each discovers and admires the other's differences. Reuven is experienced, practical, and worldly-wise; while Danny is brilliant and mystical, incredibly erudite in some matters, but incredibly naive in others. To humble him, his father, an immigrant rabbi, has followed the stern tradition of raising him in silence. He thirsts for the wider knowledge represented by Reuven's environment; while Reuven is enraptured by Danny's close-knit family and synagogue community. But can their friendship survive the sharp differences between Danny's ultra Orthodoxy and Reuven's Modern Orthodox Judaism? Danny's people oppose the State of Israel as fanatically as Reuven and his father are working to create it. The issue threatens to make them enemies once again.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009WVS...lance&n=130
The state of Israel came into being in the aftermath of WWII.
QUOTE
The new Jewish state—the first Jewish state in nearly two thousand years—was declared on schedule at midnight in Jerusalem [May 14, 1948], 6:00 P.M. in Washington. Eleven minutes later at the White House Charlie Ross [Truman’s Press Secretary] announced de facto recognition by the United States of Israel as it was to be called. David McCullough, Truman, Page 618.
Questions for Debate:
1. Was the creation of Israel appropriate, as seen by the Zionists or inappropriate as some of the Hassidic people thought?
2. Was the forming of the state of Israel in a historical biblical setting a good choice or should it have been created in a less hostile location? If you favor an alternate setting, where would it have been?
Note: This is purely an academic debate. Israel exists, where it exists. In my opinion it has a perfect right to self-preservation through the military up to the point that it becomes an aggressor. I have no idea where defense stops and aggression begins, but this is not what this debate is about, so please don’t take it there.
Another good topic BoF 
1. Was the creation of Israel appropriate, as seen by the Zionists or inappropriate as some of the Hassidic people thought?
No i actually do not think it was appropriate. It was a very interesting situation back in the aftermath of WWII where the Holocaust gave insight into the horrors of the Nazi regime perpetrated against Jews and various other ethnic, religious, and political groups. The Allies had to figure out what to do with these millions of Jews who could not simpyl go back home. So in the infinite wisdom of our European Allies, they dumped the lamb into the lion's den. They probably did not want to be the ones to bear the burden of all these refugees and put them in a place that the refugees thought they wanted to be.
One reason that probably led to the fact that Israel was established where it was, was because the Western Allies were not afraid of the Middle Eastern nations. I mean they owned them. It wasn't until they granted countries like Egypt and Syria independence that they could not affect policy. This led to massive instability. Then there was the discovery of oil which probably changed the fabric of geopolitics in that region forever. Now the Middle Eastern nations have a chip in the big game. The West needs oil, the Middle East has it. It was probably this that made it so difficult for Western nations to ensure stability with the Arab nations and Israel.
I don't think that the European Powers should have established Israel. Of course hindsight is 20/20 but it probably could have been conceived that problems would arise. Maybe the Europeans just didn't care as along as Israel was far away. I can understand why the Palestinians are upset about there being Israel. I wouldn't much like it if someone took over my living room and started living there. But it is what it is. If this was still back in the '40s and '50s... the Great Powers could make the Middle Eastern nations adhere to our decision and be happy to do it. But politics is different now.
2. Was the forming of the state of Israel in a historical biblical setting a good choice or should it have been created in a less hostile location? If you favor alternate setting, where would it have been?
Well its a matter of perspective i guess. Maybe the British could have given them a nice tropical island and they all could have lived in happiness far from anyone. But it would not be in the Holy Land. I really do not see how the place that your people once lived is made any less significant if someone else is occupying it.
But again...it is what it is. And we can't just uplift an entire nation of people and move them again. We're stuck with this mess and we have waited a long time to clean it up.
1. Was the creation of Israel appropriate, as seen by the Zionists or inappropriate as some of the Hassidic people thought?
No i actually do not think it was appropriate. It was a very interesting situation back in the aftermath of WWII where the Holocaust gave insight into the horrors of the Nazi regime perpetrated against Jews and various other ethnic, religious, and political groups. The Allies had to figure out what to do with these millions of Jews who could not simpyl go back home. So in the infinite wisdom of our European Allies, they dumped the lamb into the lion's den. They probably did not want to be the ones to bear the burden of all these refugees and put them in a place that the refugees thought they wanted to be.
One reason that probably led to the fact that Israel was established where it was, was because the Western Allies were not afraid of the Middle Eastern nations. I mean they owned them. It wasn't until they granted countries like Egypt and Syria independence that they could not affect policy. This led to massive instability. Then there was the discovery of oil which probably changed the fabric of geopolitics in that region forever. Now the Middle Eastern nations have a chip in the big game. The West needs oil, the Middle East has it. It was probably this that made it so difficult for Western nations to ensure stability with the Arab nations and Israel.
I don't think that the European Powers should have established Israel. Of course hindsight is 20/20 but it probably could have been conceived that problems would arise. Maybe the Europeans just didn't care as along as Israel was far away. I can understand why the Palestinians are upset about there being Israel. I wouldn't much like it if someone took over my living room and started living there. But it is what it is. If this was still back in the '40s and '50s... the Great Powers could make the Middle Eastern nations adhere to our decision and be happy to do it. But politics is different now.
2. Was the forming of the state of Israel in a historical biblical setting a good choice or should it have been created in a less hostile location? If you favor alternate setting, where would it have been?
Well its a matter of perspective i guess. Maybe the British could have given them a nice tropical island and they all could have lived in happiness far from anyone. But it would not be in the Holy Land. I really do not see how the place that your people once lived is made any less significant if someone else is occupying it.
But again...it is what it is. And we can't just uplift an entire nation of people and move them again. We're stuck with this mess and we have waited a long time to clean it up.
1. Was the creation of Israel appropriate, as seen by the Zionists or inappropriate as some of the Hassidic people thought?
All I know on that one is traditionally speaking I think that the holy land was to be giving back to the Jewish people by god, and in a new testament fashion I don’t think Zionists really wanted to wait. I guess a thing like a holocaust can have that kind of an effect though.
2. Was the forming of the state of Israel in a historical biblical setting a good choice or should it have been created in a less hostile location? If you favor an alternate setting, where would it have been?
I think the power that was making the decisions should have not abused itself. They did not care about giving away someone else’s land, they should have giving away there own, but I guess in that one single point they could not see the mistake they were making, or Pandora’s box really that was to be opened.
All I know on that one is traditionally speaking I think that the holy land was to be giving back to the Jewish people by god, and in a new testament fashion I don’t think Zionists really wanted to wait. I guess a thing like a holocaust can have that kind of an effect though.
2. Was the forming of the state of Israel in a historical biblical setting a good choice or should it have been created in a less hostile location? If you favor an alternate setting, where would it have been?
I think the power that was making the decisions should have not abused itself. They did not care about giving away someone else’s land, they should have giving away there own, but I guess in that one single point they could not see the mistake they were making, or Pandora’s box really that was to be opened.
1. Was the creation of Israel appropriate, as seen by the Zionists or inappropriate as some of the Hassidic people thought?
The creation of Israel was a result of Zionism and nationalism in the twentieth century. It is a modern day equivalent of the Crusades and has been a major change in the Middle East. Like the Crusades the Zionism created the ability to create a pocket of an alien world inside a sea of antagonism.
Those who created Israel had the right to do so but it never was going to happen without controversy and it may not have a more successful result than that achieved by Richard the Lionheart and his ilk.
2. Was the forming of the state of Israel in a historical biblical setting a good choice or should it have been created in a less hostile location? If you favor an alternate setting, where would it have been?
I would say that Theodor Herzl would be proud of the fruit of Zionism. It has proved to be a magnet to Jews from around the world and has created a citizenry with a dedication level that is extremely high. In terms of world peace and stability has the creation of Israel been a good thing? Heck no.
But it seems to me that the creation of Israel is every bit as appropriate of the creation of any other nation. I'm not sure the rebels of Boston and Philadelphia has a better claim to sovereignty than those of Tel Aviv.
The creation of Israel was a result of Zionism and nationalism in the twentieth century. It is a modern day equivalent of the Crusades and has been a major change in the Middle East. Like the Crusades the Zionism created the ability to create a pocket of an alien world inside a sea of antagonism.
Those who created Israel had the right to do so but it never was going to happen without controversy and it may not have a more successful result than that achieved by Richard the Lionheart and his ilk.
2. Was the forming of the state of Israel in a historical biblical setting a good choice or should it have been created in a less hostile location? If you favor an alternate setting, where would it have been?
I would say that Theodor Herzl would be proud of the fruit of Zionism. It has proved to be a magnet to Jews from around the world and has created a citizenry with a dedication level that is extremely high. In terms of world peace and stability has the creation of Israel been a good thing? Heck no.
But it seems to me that the creation of Israel is every bit as appropriate of the creation of any other nation. I'm not sure the rebels of Boston and Philadelphia has a better claim to sovereignty than those of Tel Aviv.
2. Was the forming of the state of Israel in a historical biblical setting a good choice or should it have been created in a less hostile location? If you favor an alternate setting, where would it have been?
Here is a link that is material to the second debate question; The Uganda Proposal. Prior to WW1 the British governmant made an exploratory offer to early Zionists of territory in British controlled East Africa, in what is now Kenya. This offer was made in 1907, mostly in response to Russian pogroms..
Zionists were divided at the time, and debated this offer at some length. Narrowly, they preferred the idea of a homeland in Palestine, because of the Biblical associations with the land there.
By the time of the Balfour Declaration, in 1917, the British government seemed to have accepted the idea of a Jewish homeland in more or less it's current location. It was politically expedient with the Brits at the time, mired as they were in WW1, and with a newly-Communist Russia to play politics with. As ever, today's political expediency is tomorrow's unforeseen consequences.*
Though, interestingly, Churchill apparently thought the East African idea had enough merit to revive it in the years following WW2, but Zionism by then was completely committed to the idea of their old Biblical homeland.
It's doubtful how effective this would have been - we might today be seeing an Israeli-African conflict rather than an Israeli-Arab one. I'm not sure that, following the Holocaust, the (quite understandable) Zionist desire for total autonomy and political dominance of their religion in whatever part of the Earth they called their own would have caused some friction with locals. About the only place a Zionist state could have had a peaceful birth and existance would have been somewhere with no current inhabitants. But Antarctica isn't all that appealing, (unless you like the taste of penguin).
*In typical ham-fisted Imperial fashion, the British of the day sowed the seeds of later conflict by also making promises to another group in return for assistance with the war effort - through TE Lawrence's mobilisation of tribal Arabs to fight against the Ottoman empire allied with Imperial Germany. A good idea a the time, and a necessary one, but you can't promise the same land to two different groups of people for two different sets of expediencies and not have any of what is now called 'blowback'.
Britain managed to do this lots of times in her Imperial past. The Hindu/Buddhist conflict in Sri Lanka between Hindu Tamils in the North and the Buddhist Sinhalese majority if we hadn't shipped thousands of Tamil workers from Southern India to work on the tea and rubber plantations. (Mirroring, in some ways, the tensions of race in the North America & the Caribbean, though obviously with MAJOR differences, not least that the Tamils were paid, not chained up.)
The 'Irish situation' is another obvious example.
Clearly, we didn't learn from our history, or the history of other preceding Imperial powers, very well. That said, we did better than most previous empires - the chaos wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been. Luck played it's part, but so did (some) judgement.
America is the dominant power today, and shows little sign that she is any better a student of history than any previous power. Expediency rules the day, as it always does. It's hard to see any other way to do it, to be honest, especially in a democracy, since people invariably demand that "something be done" sooner or later in the face of any kind of crisis. Historically, America has been admirably loath to do anything sooner - though this seems to have changed since 9-11 (again, this is totally understandable).
I say this only to illustrate that dominant powers shape events in unforeseen ways. Who knows what might come of them? Hindsight, in the case of Israel, is massively beneficial, but even if "they" knew then what we know now, we aren't faced with the same circumstances.
On balance, to answer the question, the choice made was about the only one possible at the time.
1. Was the creation of Israel appropriate, as seen by the Zionists or inappropriate as some of the Hassidic people thought?
Appropriate or not, I think it was inevitable. Zionist Jewry would not have settled for anything less. Had there not been a state created, I think we'd be in more or less the same boat today, only we'd be talking about Judeo-fascists and the 'problem of radical Judaism', and wondering why moderate Jews didn't condemn their extremist co-religionists.
But even with the Balfour Declaration, and a generally sympathetic UN, some sections of Zionism resorted to terrorism. Again, understandable. The only shame of this, with hindsight, is that modern Israel doesn't see any parallels in the terrorism they are subjected to, and reacts in about the same way that the British did - harshly, "we don't negotiate with terrorists" etc. Did it work for us? (clue: Britain no longer controls Palestine).
Here is a link that is material to the second debate question; The Uganda Proposal. Prior to WW1 the British governmant made an exploratory offer to early Zionists of territory in British controlled East Africa, in what is now Kenya. This offer was made in 1907, mostly in response to Russian pogroms..
Zionists were divided at the time, and debated this offer at some length. Narrowly, they preferred the idea of a homeland in Palestine, because of the Biblical associations with the land there.
By the time of the Balfour Declaration, in 1917, the British government seemed to have accepted the idea of a Jewish homeland in more or less it's current location. It was politically expedient with the Brits at the time, mired as they were in WW1, and with a newly-Communist Russia to play politics with. As ever, today's political expediency is tomorrow's unforeseen consequences.*
Though, interestingly, Churchill apparently thought the East African idea had enough merit to revive it in the years following WW2, but Zionism by then was completely committed to the idea of their old Biblical homeland.
It's doubtful how effective this would have been - we might today be seeing an Israeli-African conflict rather than an Israeli-Arab one. I'm not sure that, following the Holocaust, the (quite understandable) Zionist desire for total autonomy and political dominance of their religion in whatever part of the Earth they called their own would have caused some friction with locals. About the only place a Zionist state could have had a peaceful birth and existance would have been somewhere with no current inhabitants. But Antarctica isn't all that appealing, (unless you like the taste of penguin).
*In typical ham-fisted Imperial fashion, the British of the day sowed the seeds of later conflict by also making promises to another group in return for assistance with the war effort - through TE Lawrence's mobilisation of tribal Arabs to fight against the Ottoman empire allied with Imperial Germany. A good idea a the time, and a necessary one, but you can't promise the same land to two different groups of people for two different sets of expediencies and not have any of what is now called 'blowback'.
Britain managed to do this lots of times in her Imperial past. The Hindu/Buddhist conflict in Sri Lanka between Hindu Tamils in the North and the Buddhist Sinhalese majority if we hadn't shipped thousands of Tamil workers from Southern India to work on the tea and rubber plantations. (Mirroring, in some ways, the tensions of race in the North America & the Caribbean, though obviously with MAJOR differences, not least that the Tamils were paid, not chained up.)
The 'Irish situation' is another obvious example.
Clearly, we didn't learn from our history, or the history of other preceding Imperial powers, very well. That said, we did better than most previous empires - the chaos wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been. Luck played it's part, but so did (some) judgement.
America is the dominant power today, and shows little sign that she is any better a student of history than any previous power. Expediency rules the day, as it always does. It's hard to see any other way to do it, to be honest, especially in a democracy, since people invariably demand that "something be done" sooner or later in the face of any kind of crisis. Historically, America has been admirably loath to do anything sooner - though this seems to have changed since 9-11 (again, this is totally understandable).
I say this only to illustrate that dominant powers shape events in unforeseen ways. Who knows what might come of them? Hindsight, in the case of Israel, is massively beneficial, but even if "they" knew then what we know now, we aren't faced with the same circumstances.
On balance, to answer the question, the choice made was about the only one possible at the time.
1. Was the creation of Israel appropriate, as seen by the Zionists or inappropriate as some of the Hassidic people thought?
Appropriate or not, I think it was inevitable. Zionist Jewry would not have settled for anything less. Had there not been a state created, I think we'd be in more or less the same boat today, only we'd be talking about Judeo-fascists and the 'problem of radical Judaism', and wondering why moderate Jews didn't condemn their extremist co-religionists.
But even with the Balfour Declaration, and a generally sympathetic UN, some sections of Zionism resorted to terrorism. Again, understandable. The only shame of this, with hindsight, is that modern Israel doesn't see any parallels in the terrorism they are subjected to, and reacts in about the same way that the British did - harshly, "we don't negotiate with terrorists" etc. Did it work for us? (clue: Britain no longer controls Palestine).
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.