Wow. Reading the opener to this discussion, I get the impression all Jews are responsible for all Israeli actions, and all Israeli actions having nothing to do with anything except religion. Oh, and that all Jewish atrocities against Palestinians are equivalent to all atrocities over time by Christendom and Islam.
Surely, that's not what you meant. At least, I hope not. For every 1,000 people in the world, there are only 2 Jews. (CIA source online: Christian 33.35% (of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04% (2009 est.)
Of course, if you really think you should do all you can to block Israel and remove support from world Jewry, boycott. Put your computer down, because the microprocessor was designed and created there. Same for your cell phone, I'd wager. Internet telephony: Programming invented by a young Israeli. Careful the medications you take and vaccinations, too. Jewish doctors and scientists, doing what they were told was required of the chosen people, to improve the world, are responsible for many. Anything requiring modern electronics probably has some basis in Einstein's E=mc2....
Being raised Jewish, I was taught being chosen was like being the oldest sibling. I was responsible to our skydaddy for correcting the issues in my community and world. If someone broke the law, it was because I didn't help prevent that with good education, a secure and safe homelife, enough to eat, etc. I was to set the highest example of good behavior, or take responsibility for the outcomes, if I did not. In return, I'd get the Sabbath. That was the deal.
It has been the way of Christendom, since at least the time of Emperor Constantine, to claim otherwise. For the sin of killing their skydaddy's Jesus, Jews were not to be wiped out as a people, as that might offend same skydaddy, but their lives were to be made hell on earth.
Sadly, this antisemitic mentality so infuses the world, today, that insight against it is rare. Most can't see the forest for the trees: "Of course I hate Jews! Doesn't everyone? Therefore, it must be right to do so. Why bother to question it? Other Jew haters fill the net with plenty of manipulated work to support this easy conclusion: Let's all hate the Jews.
A true freethinker should be re-thinking this... Anyone with a mind open to viewing a documentary of the history of anti-semitism by a former Jesuit, see or read "Constantine's Sword." It opened my eyes. Even I had not realized how deep and pervasive the source.
Look back over the past six decades of terrorism in the world, and you'll find Israel was rather like a test tube, the Jews being experimental specimen no one would miss (or, at least, stand up for). As the goals and techniques of terrorism were fine tuned, they were and are ultimately being used around the world.
The world arm-twisted Israel into negotiating with terrorists for peace. Now, those who watched and learned understand better how to approach negotiations with the west.
Terrorists have learned that, under the guise of negotiation, manipulation can be well played, as part of their armamentarium of asymmetrical warfare. Terrorism, itself, is asymmetrical warfare, too, by the way.
So, why care about Israel? Because it is the "canary in the coal mine."
No doubt the claim that god has a chosen people and that Jews have claim to some peice of land is ridiculous. I have also wondered why we give Jews a pass on ritualistic genatle mutilation aka the brit milah. In 1997, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a joint statement with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) against the practice of FGM. A new statement, with wider United Nations support, was then issued in February 2008 to support increased advocacy for the abandonment of FGM.
I realize this is in response to female mutilation which is done for religious reasons but why not come down on the Jews for essentially the same thing?
Circumcision in adult males, for such surgical issues as pathologic phimosis, affects sensory nerve endings, thereby risking impotence or lack of sexual gratification, afterward.
Circumcision in infants, when the nervous system is still "plastic" and able to heal with normal functional results, avoids this risk. In ancient times, sand might have been very irritating caught between a non-retracting foreskin and the penile shaft. Chronic irritation risks squamous cell carcinoma. Lacking sand, pathologic phimosis carries risk of penile cancer, as well.
During medical/surgical training, I performed and/or assisted on both infant and (older) adult circumcision. Based on that experience and concurrent medical knowledge, were I male, I would chose circumcision in infancy. It compares to an appendectomy (though less invasive and risky): It is the removal of vestigial flesh that will not be missed. It carries removal of risk of surgery with serious consequences, should pathology develop.
The babies, by the way, achieve reduction in pain through a taste of sweet wine. Science shows ingestion of sugar reduces sense of pain in children. And, the procedure, overall, is much faster and painless than fixing an ingrown toenail. (I've done those, too.) Topical anesthetic is allowed, now that it's available.