This is the humanist Left we’re talking about, it’s enough that Jews simply not be sovereign as Jews, preferably Palestine in place of Israel and Diaspora Jewish communities of X-men “of the Mosaic faith.” The French 3rd Republic whipped up a “Mosaic personal status” for its non-citizen Sahrawi Jews and the Palestinian Reds (PFLP, DFLP) are willing to accept any Israeli Jew born pre-1917 as Palestinian. What’s not to like?

De Bris should join the AWB in preference to the BNP, however. “Everyone in his own place and only in that place” has “rivers of blood” beat by a mile.

First off, I did not write about ethno religious groups, rather I was responding to Der Whigphilosophe der Geschichte’s comment that made use of Anglicans and members of the Church of Scotland or Ireland for an analogy he came up with, specifically to emphasize that these groups are religious confessions or faith groups as opposed to nationalities or ethnicities.

So if in your opinion, I’m the most ignorant person as regards European history, it doesn’t help your case much to use build a strawman about European ethno religious groups and then proceed to claim you’ve knocked it down.

But while we’re at it, why don’t you enlighten my alleged all encompassing ignorance about European history and provide some links as to where and when Anglicans and members of the Church of Scotland or Ireland were charged with deicide, blood libeled and then ethnically cleansed from their own countries in pogroms and later in a state industrial genocide?

If you can’t provide any substantiation that the aforementioned faith groups were persecuted in those specific ways, I guess I’ll have no choice but to conclude that you’re the dullest knife in the drawer and the most dimmest bulb in the socket when it comes to European history.

Idiot.

Yawn indeed.

No, the parallels would not be a lot more useful to Roger de Bris and not only given his stated views, but also because your analogizing between Anglicans and members of the Church of Scotland or Ireland getting fast track immigration into Britain and Jews getting fast track immigration into Israel is entirely untenable.

Unless you believe Britain’s raison d’etre as a state was to provide an island of refuge for a population Anglicans and members of the Church of Scotland who were almost continuously persecuted for millennia for the metaphysical charge of deicide, blood libeled and then ethnically cleansed from their own countries first in pogroms and later in a state industrial genocide and that Jews have no identity other than a faith identity.

Of course, there’s nothing whatsoever even remotely grounded in Christocentric assumptions that would allow you to come up with an analogy like the one you did, is there?

Yawn.

Irael exists because its Jewish immigrants were not considered ‘western’ enough for inclusion. Now they are regarded as just ‘western’ enough for exclusion.

Zkharya, you need to follow the line of European left logic a bit further. If the Jews do not belong in Israel, but neither do they belong in other countries, then …. they belong nowhere, verstehen sie?

So, without saying it outrightly, the left proposes … elimination. Sound familiar?

Simply put, Monsieur de Bris, your opinion doesn’t count.

Not even about another Bris, the one Jews perform on your namesake.

Israeli “present absentees” do not even come close to that, as they exercise the full rights of citizens. Jerusalem Palestinians might, but in theory they could take out Israeli, PA, or Jordanian papers, depending on place and date of birth.

If Jews had been solely a religion, they would have vanished to almost nothing long ago, or been subsumed, like the other pre-Christian religions. Had they been solely an ethnic group, the same.

Jews remain, in the numbers they do, because they are both.

Do you think the Samaritans have ever been not seen as an ethnic group? And the Samaritans have shrunk so much that they have had to accept Jewish wives for their men.

Comparing Jews to the British is daft.

EXCEPT:

the earliest indigenous British documents are by Welsh monks. Welsh Christian monks (as Irish) are the first formulators of a Gallo-British national identity (as, arguably, Anglo-Saxon monks for the English, too). And, for them, British identity was inseparable from a Christian one, in the face of, as they saw it, their dispossession from most of Britain by the pagan Anglo-Saxons et al.

In fact, they explicitly associate their narrative of dispossession with that of the biblical Israel in exile.

The Judaism that we know was in no small part redacted in Babylon as a means for Judeans’ keeping their identity in exile.

Palestinian Muslims and Christians have evolved a quasi-religious system and narrative to perpetuate their identity in exile, too, replete with ritual and liturgy, one to which many cultural Christian Westeners are converting, adopting the Palestinian Muslim and Christian national cause (gospel?) for the sake of personal redemption.

I don’t see much point in responding to somebody who seems determined to put words into my mouth, but I will make one effort to do so. I made no claim that jewish religion and national identity were first combined by Zionism, I merely observed that this was one facet of Zionism. My actual words were -

‘… the particular combination of religion and national identity in the concept of jewishness evident in Zionist political ideology, which is not equally evident in modern British national self-identity.’

To dance with your straw man for one moment, Jews were not alone in facing historical religious disqualifications from civil life in France or elsewhere, even if they were routinely confronted by intense anti-semitic repression in particular. I’m afraid I don’t accept your contention that jews ‘never saw themselves as solely a faith or religious confession’; I contend that many (if not all) did and many (if not all) still do.

Your assumption that political Zionism created what you refer to as a “peculiar combination” between faith and nationality or faith and peoplehood, Der Whigphilosophe der Geschichte, is anachronistic to say the least.

It might well be, but in fact it is not my assumption but your assumption about my views.

I would also suggest it is also Christocentric and may be part and parcel of a disingenuous antizionist political narrative that you have taken at face value.

You could suggest that, but you would be equally wrong.