Heh, one of the things I very much like about Judaism is the notion of the so-called “Noahide laws” - that is, that in traditional Judaism itself there is the notion that those who are not Jewish who practice basic rules of benevolence are *morally equal * to any Jew’ after all, Noah himself is considered a most righteous man - and he wasn’t a Jew (though in the mythology he was the ancestor of everyone, Jew or not).
Yeah, it can be a bitch to read - and I’ve been reading Hebrew since preschool! The words are so freaking long, and the lack of vowels is difficult. It really helped me to remember that the ayins are pronounced “eh” . Still, what a beautiful, bitter and expressive language. My grandparents have been gone for years, and I really miss the sound of it.
I moved there about 4 years ago… 4? 5? christ it’s almost 2009! Anyway, I lived on various kibbutzim the whole time, as I don’t want to live in cities anymore, and found the whole kibbutz idea intriguing. Unfortunately the reality is that it’s pretty much a failed concept. What few kibbutzim remain uncommercialized are struggling, and even the fully commercialized ones are more or less just moshavim now, and this despite much govt and other agency loans - most of which still await repayment.
I can say that Israeli culture does not appeal to me much. On an individual basis people can be extremely pleasant and kind (and this may not make sense) but collectively they’re arrogant, chauvinist and brusque. There were certain other things, besides the obvious Palestinian issues, that I couldn’t get my head around, in particular the holiday period where one day we mourn and remember all the soldiers who died for Israel, and the next day WOOHOO! we’re an independent country! PARRRTYYYY! I just couldn’t get into that.
As for the language, I found it really hard to get. No small part of this being my inability to grasp new languages 
I did an intensive ulpan up to level daled, and in the end was able to read quite well, although understanding conversational Hebrew was still problematic for me. I also can’t help feeling the chauvinism prevalent in society is somewhat rooted in the language. I could never get into the male/female for e.v.e.r.y.thing, with no neutral.
I don’t think that’s true – many major religions much larger than Judaism aren’t particularly evangelical, and some don’t accept converts at all. The Big Two (Christianity and Islam) that do actively try to win new converts come from a similar tradition and operate on the idea that they’re saving souls for the glory of God. Other religions that lack such a concept don’t actively proselytize. Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Sikhism, Jainism, all of these either don’t accept converts at all, or will accept converts but don’t actively proselytize (i.e. you have to come to them).
I dunno about Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Sikhism or Jainism, but certainly there are factions of Hinduism than are pretty conversion-oriented, such as Krishna Conciousness.
The others may well be “major religions”, but at least here in North America I have not actually met any practitioner of them, except for the occasional Sikh. Of course I may have met 'em but not known it.
Certainly when one considers the “major religions” here in North America, it is generally those religions or religious practices which actively practice prosthelitism that spring to mind - with the exception of Judaism.
So a ‘major religion’ is one that’s practiced in North American? Even if you stretch the definitions of ‘Jew’ to its breaking point, you’d still get less than 20 million Jews worldwide. 890 million Hindus live in India (plus about another 30 million abroad). It’s not as if Hinduism isn’t a major religion just because you yourself do not personally know any Hindus. Jewish culture, thought, and people have made major contributions to modern-day American society, and I’m not saying anything against them. But it’s ridiculous to act as though Judaism, and only Judaism, doesn’t proselytize.
ISKCON is a religious movement that sprang from Hinduism, and its status as a sect of Hinduism is sometimes questioned by Hindus and Hare Krishnas alike. I’m not qualified to say they are or aren’t Hindus, any more than I’m qualified to say that the Jews for Jesus are or aren’t Jews. But mainstream Hinduism isn’t much interested in conversion; Hindu doctrine states that there’s many paths to the truth, and so Hindus don’t have that frantic “we must save your souls!!!” rhetoric you see in some salvationist religions. Some Hindu sects accept converts, and others don’t. YMMV.
Hinduism is clearly a “major religion”. You are misreading my post. I discuss Hinduism in the first paragraph, pointing out that at least some varieties are prostheletizing, and then say that “the others” - i.e., Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, etc. - aren’t major religions in North America (and indeed I do not know if Shintoism even exists at all outside of Japan). So your big guns are firing at the wrong target. 
As for whether Hare Krishna can be compared to Jews for Jesus - I think they cannot. “Jews for Jesus” is, as the name clearly implies, a Christian organization. There is no accusation that Hare Krishna is really Christian or any other religion.
The difference with Judaism is that, while some varieties of Hinduism accept and even encourage conversion and others don’t, no major movement within Judaism seeks converts - from non-Jews. Jewish movements equivalent to Hare Krishna do exist (think Lubavitchers), but they are inevitably focused on “convering” other Jews to their group, not non-Jews.
I do not believe I am misunderstanding you at all. You said Judaism is one of the few or even the *only *‘major religion’ that doesn’t actively proselytize. I pointed out that any number of major religions with as many or far more members than Judaism are not actively proselytizing or outright do not accept converts at all, full stop. North America is not the world. For that matter, almost half of all Jews live in Israel, which is definitely outside North America. So backpedaling and saying “Oh, I meant major North American religions” is ridiculous. There are indeed Shinto practioners in North America, and scattered communities worldwide, although the bulk of the population is in Japan. There’s a healthy community of Zoroastrians in the USA and Canada. There’s also at least a few million Hindus in North America – and whatever your protests, Hare Krishnas make up only a tiny fraction of Hindus – and Hinduism does not proselytize.
The Jews for Jesus controversy is one neither I, nor I suspect you, are qualified to pass judgment on. A lot of people consider anyone who professes to be a member of their religion to be a member of their religion. For example, some Christians don’t feel Mormons should be considered Christians, but Mormons certainly believe they’re Christian, so most people respect their beliefs and consider them Christian. The Hare Krishnas are another group that mainstream Hindus may or may not accept as being Hindu.
I merely pointed out a mistake in your previous post - you interpreted me as saying that I thought Hinduism wasn’t a “major religion”; that simply wasn’t what I meant at all - I was doubting the major religion status of “the others”, such as Shintoism, which is really more the cultural religion of Japan.
Now if you are going to argue that you are right and I am wrong on what I actually said, even though it is there for all to read - well, I can’t argue if you get to take both sides. 
That being said, i think one can quite readily point out that a religion such as Shintoism, which is tied to the Japanese people, has interesting similarities with and differences to Judaism - which is tied to the Jewish people. Most importantly, Shintoism, in spite of the number of people who (arguably) profess some variety of it, has had very little theological impact on others - I suppose mainly because the Japanese people have not been scattered to the winds.
Zorasitrianism and Jainsim I admit I don’t know very much about; they do not I think on any account constitute “major religions”, having few adherents and being pretty local.
I merely disagree on your characterization that Hindus “don’t prostheletize”. Hare Krishna certainly does. It may well be the case that most do not, but they are the most visible ones.
Thus, of the counter-examples you provided, three I do not think are major (either because they are few in number or are purely local or both), and one I think is major but is not free of prostheletizing. The Sikhs I would say are pretty major and don’t particularly prostheletize, so you get one out of five.
The difference is (or ought to be) obvious; the “Jews for Jesus” are members of one well-recognized religion claiming, merely for the purposes of conversion, to be members of another. It is a mere semantic confusion they have deliberately chosen to exploit, due to the nature of Judaism being at the same time a cultural affinity, an ethnicity, and a religion. Their unabashed purpose is the conversion of Jews, quite specifically to evangelical Christianity. To provide them as an example of “Jews” prostheletizing is perverse, as it is in fact an example of Christians prosthelitizing Jews.
The Hare Krishnas, on the other hand, are either “Hindus” or some variety of Hinduism so far outside the mainstream as to be considered a new religion. No-one claims they are actually (say) Muslims merely pretending to be Hindus; they are not attempting to exploit people’s understanding of what it means to be “Hindu”. They are what they are.