MJ,

Does a potential President support the Prime Minister of Israel when he commits himself to getting out of the territories and establishing peace with the Palestinians. Or do other (obvious) considerations matter more?

It would be refreshing to see or hear the matter articulated in that way -- ie, "Do you support the Prime Minister of Israel's goal of ending the occupation and implementing Palestinian political independence beside Israel?"

But we all know that is seldom how the question comes out.  Typically these questions seem loaded up more provacatively, and phrased in terms of concessions and competition.  Our punditry needs to get off the usual script as much as, if not more than, the candidates.

Does a potential President support the Prime Minister of Israel

"Annapolis is a hopeful development because Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in serious discussions again and the countries of the region are involved, and I commend Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas for making the effort.

"I spoke with Prime Minister Olmert today, and assured him of my strong support for this effort and my unshakeable commitment to Israel's security as a core principle as negotiations move forward.

"The Administration deserves credit for finally trying to use presidential diplomacy to bring the parties together. It's a big change from the last six and a half years, when President Bush badly neglected this conflict. Recognizing the complexity of the issues under discussion and the importance of the conflict, it is my hope that this conference is just the start of a sustained push by the United States, the Israelis and the Palestinians to achieve the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security."

as far as I see it, "Annapolis" was a dog and pony show. our politicians probably think: "if there was peace, I'd be out of a job."

To boldly go...

I'm only saying that it's a "wait and see thing." every US president, it seems-- just before leaving office, does their Israel/Palestinian peace thing. Maybe things will be different this time...

To boldly go...

Walt-Mearsheimer and Carter express anti-Semitic views over and over. Rosenberg never fails to support these bigots. It calls into question anything else he says.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Please, MJ, stop your nonsensicle talk about "sharing" Jerusalem. The Israeli Left who generally supports the suicidal policies that you espouse don't call it that. They call it "dividing the city" and they know very well what that entails.
I have already shown in earlier threads that "sharing" or "dividing" Jerusalem means DESTROYING Jerusalem, and turning it into a cauldron of violence like Beirut, Belfast and Baghdad. You know this perfectly well, so please use more accurate terminology.

There is no reason that a means can't be devised to keep Jerusalem physically undivided but administratively separate. It is also a matter of what one calls Jersualem. The Old City, the more modern areas.

How would having Israel govern the Arab parts of Jerusalem in perpetuity produce any less violence than some form of political division as part of a peace agreement?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'd love for all that to happen. the tougher thing, I think, is healing... The reason why I'm suspicious is that I support a one state solution but, if relationships can be normalized-- as you indicated, that's great too.

To boldly go...

I realize mentioning Daniel Pipes to this crowd is like waving a red cape in front of a bull.  Nevertheless, he brings up a very interesting issue in The Jerusalem Post.

Surprisingly, something useful has emerged from the combination of the misconceived Annapolis meeting and a weak Israeli prime minister, Ehud ("Peace is achieved through concessions") Olmert. Breaking with his predecessors, Olmert has boldly demanded that his Palestinian bargaining partners accept Israel's permanent existence as a Jewish state, thereby evoking a revealing response.

Unless the Palestinians recognize Israel as "a Jewish state," Olmert announced on November 11, the Annapolis-related talks would not proceed. "I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state."

The Arab response to this is very telling:

The Palestinian leadership responded quickly and unequivocally to Olmert's demand:

• The Higher Arab Monitoring Committee in Nazareth unanimously called on the Palestinian Authority not to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
• Salam Fayad, Palestinian Authority "prime minister": "Israel can define itself as it likes, but the Palestinians will not recognize it as a Jewish state."
• Yasser Abed Rabbo, secretary general of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's executive committee: "This issue is not on the table; it is raised for internal [Israeli] consumption."
• Ahmad Qurei, chief Palestinian negotiator: "This [demand] is absolutely refused."
• Saeb Erekat, head of the PLO Negotiations Department: "The Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity. … There is no country in the world where religious and national identities are intertwined."

Pipes draws the only possible conclusion:

So, why the mock-principled refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?  Perhaps because the PLO still intends to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state.

Note my use of the word "eliminate," not destroy. Yes, anti-Zionism has until now mainly taken a military form, from Gamal Abdel Nasser's "throw the Jews into the sea" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "Israel must be wiped off the map." But the power of the Israel Defense Forces has prodded anti-Zionism toward a more subtle approach of accepting an Israeli state but dismantling its Jewish character.

Those who think that negotiations as they are currently envisioned will lead to peace need to grapple with this issue.  Why is the Palestinian leadership unwilling to acknowledge the Jewish character of Israel?  If they were negotiating in good faith, this should be a non-issue.  The formula of "two states, Palestinian and Israeli, living side by side in peace" implies that the reason for two states is that one should be Jewish and the other Arab.  If not, why have two states at all?  Indeed, declaring their acceptance of Israel's Jewish character would go a long way towards giving Israelis the confidence to make concessions. 

The only possible explanation for their refusal is that to acknowledge the Jewish character of Israel and to accept it is to say that once the details of a treaty are agreed, the conflict will be be well and truly over. 

Consequently, while the Arabs may agree to an Israeli state, as long as Israel is a Jewish state, the conflict will go on.  Now it is possible to acknowledge that and still say that a treaty is better than no treaty.  Similarly, it is possible to say that acceptance of Israel's Jewish character is part of reconciliation and that a treaty is the first step towards reconciliation.  I don't agree with either of these statements, but I can at least agree that they are honest.  What is totally not honest is asserting that a treaty between Israel and the Palestinians constitutes "peace".

BradtheDad says:

Why is the Palestinian leadership unwilling to acknowledge the Jewish character of Israel?

Has anyone ever asked them?

And Israel should recognize Palestine as a Muslim state and they can toss a coin to decide who has the better imaginary friend.

Do you actually think that if someone did ask them, the answer would be worth anything?

I'm glad I'm getting my new glasses in a couple of weeks. At first, that registered as Jesse Jackson supporting Donald Duck.

That led me to a bit of cartoon meditation. When Donald was asked a question, he'd quack, squawk, and wiggle, but never actually answer, rather like GWB at a press conference.

I wonder if the AFLAC duck, being somewhat smoother, is really Huey, Louie, or Dewie who managed to get through Harvard Business School?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Are politics transcending parody?

William Burns,

What other country in the world demands that other states formally recognize the perpetual right to dominance of its dominant ethnic group?

Most of them.  A significant privilege of national sovereignty is the determination of who gets to be a citizen of the state.  It works this way in Ireland, and it will work the same way in Palestine.

Israel is a Jewish state the same way 23 member nations of the Arab League are Arab states.

Can you please elaborate on this view because I just don't get it. The Arab league is made of countries in Arabia aka The Middle East. Israel isn't a member because it wasn't invited to the region. I understand that "Jewish" can represent both religion and cultural identity, but I don't see how either of those apply to state-hood in a democracy. An Arab state is a state in Arabia, the same way a European State is in Europe. It seems a Jewish State falls along the lines of the group based in South Carolina claiming to be a "Christian State," or a country-club declaring itself a "Caucasian State" etc.

My reaction to this is why can't Israel just ask to be recognized as a Free Democratic State with equal rights for all, that just happens to have a lot of Jews? Thats not rhetorical, I really would like an explanation of this thinking because I think it could be a serious roadblock to progress in the IP conflict, since it is such an intangible issue.

Such a silly issue. Why should Israelis care whether Palestinians recognize Israel as anything other than as Israel. It's not up to the Arabs to determine the Jewishness of Israel just as it is not up to the Israel to recognize Iran as Shiite or Ireland as Catholic.
The whole point of Zionism was for Jews to have a state and to define it as they see fit.
It's a total non-issue, literally designed to move the goal posts.

Gag. Maybe the Arabs won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state because that requires them to delegitimize the Arab Citizens of Israel. If that isn't offensive to you, then let's make a deal: Let's agree to ask all Americans to recognize America as a White Christian State...and if you object, I get to call you a bigot.

This comment is false. While it is true that the Catholic Church has a special position in Ireland--like the Church of England does in England--to compare that association with the privileges that attach to Israeli Jews versus Israeli Arabs or Arabs under Occupation in the West Bank and Control in Gaza is really, really misleading.

mythbuster,

Maybe the Arabs won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state because that requires them to delegitimize the Arab Citizens of Israel.

Recognizing the Jewish character of Israel no more delegitimizes Israeli-Arabs than recognizing Iran as a Persian state deligitimizes Iranian Jews.

Exactly, so why not just say "Israel is a democratic state with a Jewish character" instead of all this demanding-recognition-as-a-Jewish-State nonsense?

I believe such recognition is implied through the diplomatic network of the international community.

mjrosenberg,

Why should Israelis care whether Palestinians recognize Israel as anything other than as Israel. It's not up to the Arabs to determine the Jewishness of Israel....

Agreed.  That said, I can understand and even relate to the sensitivity of the issue.  No one questions the legitimacy of the Arab character of any Arab League member nation, even though Arab peoples are not the only peoples indigenous to the Middle East region.  Even here in our own enlightened discourse, we find a wide opinion that refuses to accept or otherwise recognize that Jews are a legitimate nationality. 

No I am not making any such mistake. I am saying that insisting on the Palestinians to recognize Israel as Jewish state is to ask them to officially acknowledge that her non-Jewish citizens will have secondary status. This is asking too much of Abbas.

This problem has infected Bush's rhetoric as he stated at Annapolis: "And the United States will keep its commitment to the security of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people."

This is new folks. Our official recognition of Israel never raised its Jewish citizens to a preferred class. Hopefully Bush and Olmert are just throwing red meat at the Aipac and Likud followers and this is just empty rhetoric. But if it represents negotiating positions of the Israel and the US, we are guaranteed continued war.

Andrew Weakland said:

Exactly, so why not just say "Israel is a democratic state with a Jewish character"

Well, that sure is a mouthful, but it does seem to be less...........what is the word I'm looking for here? Separatist?

Because, as of now, only 3 out of the 23 member nations of the Arab League (or Israel's neighboring states in the immediate region) even recognize Israel at all, and the reason for that is that Israel is a Jewish, and not an Arab, state.

Refresh me, then, on the rules. I may actually be confused by some of the admitted extremists that insist they have Biblical justification for a Greater Israel.

What are the criteria for someone exercising the right of return? Matrilineal only? How many generation? How much documentation?

Ireland and Germany put some fairly tight restrictions on their definitions. I would really like to know if Israel's definition is generally consistent with those major nations that claim an ethnic identity. Not all nations do make such a claim, and I find that rather healthy. Saudi Arabia is far less liberal than Israel, I'm sure, but Saudi Arabia makes no pretensions of being a liberal democracy.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"Separatist"?  How is it that Israel gets tagged with loaded terms like that when the only multinational organization in the region, the Arab League, obviously excludes non-Arab states and has maintained an economic, cultural and political boycott against the only non-Arab state in the region for about the last sixty years?

They're all semites, aren't they?

It is a silly issue. It's also disengenuous - if the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, then what's to stop Israel from claiming that parts of the Mideast are "Jewish?" Jerusalem is Jewish, Judeah is Jewish - if the Palestinians have to recognize that Israel is a Jewish state, then they must recognize whatever is claimed by the Jews to be Jewish.

Fine, so my question returns, why is there a legitimate need for a separate, formal recognition beyond the normal process by which states recognize other states here? Has Israel recognized the "right of Arab states to exist as Arab states"? And for that matter, don't Arab states exist as separate states with separate citizenships, so that the issue is the right of Jordan as a Jordanian state? To which the analogy would be Israel's right to exist as an Israeli state, which is a tautology?

Should the new State of Palestine be recognized as a state for the Palestinians (at least primarily)? And are the Palestinians not a people?

William Burns,

Fine, so my question returns, why is there a legitimate need for a separate, formal recognition beyond the normal process by which states recognize other states here?

Again, because Israel has been, and still remains, economically boycotted, culturally demonized and politically isolated by virtually all of the neighboring states in the region since its establishment, based upon the idea that only Arab peoples are worthy of national rights in "the Arab World."  Because the ultimate goal of Zionism is not simply to establish a Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people, but to reintegrate the Jewish people into its native region with all the national dignity it deserves.

delete

Maybe I'm missing your point, but how would this work?

In the case of Ireland, for example, it's how many generations removed are you from the motherland.

For Jews, it would be thousands of years since their families lived in the motherland. That ain't gonna work, obviously.

And it's part of the argument used against the State per se and certainly the right of return.

I think the problem disappears practically. Most Jews will never exercise this right because they prefer to live where they live, including Zionista.

And I imagine that Israel couldn't "fit" all the Jews in the world if they ever decided to move there.

But as far as being Jewish, and for how long, most Jews have come from Jewish families whose ancestors were also Jews and so on for many generations. Unless I misunderstand you, it's sort of a meaningless question, IMO.

"But now the Israel-Palestine issue should be front and center."

I just returned from a nice long Thanksgiving weekend with my family in Iowa.

Sorry to break it to you folks, but Israel-Palestine didn't come up during in the political discussion over the turkey and corn casserole.

Sorry, I'm confused on the indentation. Is this addressed to me?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Jews and Arabs are semites - they are not different races. Why are Israelis making a big deal out of it? So it is about religion after all?

It really comes down to population sizes.

No one questions the Arab character of, say, Egypt, because a LOT of Arabs live there and have for a long time.

Folks question the Jewish character of Israel because Jews are a small people and are always on the verge of being outnumbered, just based on birth rate. And Israel as a state is a relative newcomer.

Plus a lot of folks wish Israel didn't exist per se. Had she lost any of the wars against her, she might not. No one really has felt that way about any of the Arab states. I don't even think the Israelis have ever really felt that way.

If Jews would only "get on it," this question would probably disappear. But I fear we are destined to have a small carbon footprint.

Plus, neither Jews nor anyone else is interested in changing the Arab character of, say, SA or Egypt. But a lot of folks would like to see the Jewish character of Israel disappear. It offends their sensibilities.

(I think it comes down to this: Changing the Arab character of, say, SA seems like an impossible task. Plus, who's trying to move there? Only other Arabs! And somehow, Americans don't feel they are propping up this state of affairs. And this: They don't live next to many ex-pat Saudi-Americans the way they live next to many Jews. When an American or European Jew argues for keeping Israel Jewish, it strikes folks as insane and somehow unAmerican--almost as if THEY were arguing for it. Americans aren't supposed to think like that. Saudis? Okay, what are you going to do, and besides, that's "over there." Not so with Israel which, the Lobby et al notwithstanding and specifically excluded here, seems much more like "us." We're embarrassed that an ally, that is, "someone like us," is acting in such a medieval way.)

Again, the Palestinian character of a Palestinian state seems to be a no-brainer to many folks (maybe because we start to get all anthropological when thinking about "other peoples), while the Jewish character of Israel calls forth UN condemnations of racism and, in some quarters, charges that the Zionists wish to take over the world. I guess molecule by molecule.

William Burns,

And before you say that Israel has enemies and Ireland doesn't, I will point out that if recognition of the ethnic character of states were a part of formal diplomacy, Ireland would be strongly motivated to extort such recognition from the United Kingdom.

Really?  Then what was all the fuss about back in 1920?

Ok, do those three states then have the obligation for the second recognition? 

Weird, huh?  But that's the deal that was offered to Israel.  Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania are member nations of the Arab League, and the deal from Beirut and Riyadh as I understand it is that Israel receives comprehensive recognition and normalization from the Arab League pending Palestine's approval of terms.  So, from an Israeli perspective, it would seem to be something worth working for to have Palestinian recognition secured so the Arab League can begin the process of normalization as swiftly and easily as possible.  Not to mention facilitating Israeli concessions and its cooperation with Palestine as it establishes its own sovereignty.

Serbian and Croats not only belongs to same race but they speak the same language, but still they made a big deal out of it? So it is about religion after all? If so, what's your point.

Yes, but I'm tired, so I may be confused as to your point.

Bluebell is correct, it really marginal issue, nothing important would change, no matter what the result of this conference

Thanks for the heads up - I'll be able to record it.

So what's your plan for the world?
Open border for everybody? No countries?
Let's force Serbs and Croats to be one country again? Let's stay in Iraq until Shiites and Sunites live peacefully together again?
Let's unite India and Pakistan, USA and Mexico?

or let's just screw up Israel?

to reintegrate the Jewish people into its native region with all the national dignity it deserves.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The question in 1920 was territorial sovereignty, not the ethnic character of the state. I'm perfectly fine with Arab diplomatic recognition of Israel, I just think this whole "recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state" is at best an annoying sideshow, at worst an active attempt to sabotage a potential agreement.

I suppose I could start claiming I have Martian identity...I don't know why, I guess because I can. You keep insisting on a Jewish identity that is intimately tied to the ideology of Zionism, or, perhaps, a better way to say it is that if Jewish identity were considered as religious, Zionism might lose power.

I know quite a few religiously Jewish people that consider Israel to be about as much as "their state" as is Mongolia. I can think of people that are secular religiously, although have a great interest in a historic culture, the sort called Yinglish, whose "state" is centered on the lower east side of New York.

I hear your demands as ramming an Israeli, not a Jewish, identity down the throat of people who don't want it, and anyone who objects must have something wrong with them. I hear a great deal of intolerance for anyone who will not accept your particular definition of Jewish identity. To coin a phrase, it is undignified.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I agree it is about demographics but to the Palestinians it’s not really about the Jewish character of Israel, is it? Much less than agreeing to a Jewish Israel, I think many Palestinians still have hopes of returning to their homeland. This might be scoffed at inside Israel, given the situation as it has evolved over 60 years, but does that make their aspirations less valid? The Arab character of any place else has nothin’ to do with nothin’.

Israel exists as a state with a Jewish majority now. 20% of it is Palestinian and they have as much right to exist there as anyone. Of course, if it were officially a Jewish state, which is being written into its constitution as we speak, there is no reason Palestinians could not be transferred out. I understand that many on the Israeli side believe removing the remaining Palestinians from their homes to their own state in what is (now) 15% of mandatory Palestine is the just solution. And I understand why the Palestinians reject it out of hand.

Ever heard the song "Oh Lord won't you give me a Mercedes Benz?" Increasingly, the Zionist argument seems to sound like that...that Zionists need their separate land to feel safe.

Of course, that they also need to have a military that could give a hard time to any in the world today, and could flatten all the legions of the Third Reich without breaking a sweat, goes without saying. I suppose that it's that fear that causes them to refuse to participate in any kind of nuclear arms control -- and that does not mean disarming -- but they can decide that Iran's sense of dignity is irrelevant because if Iran decides it needs nuclear weapons to feel dignified, that's tough on Iran. Only Israel gets to demand dignity.

Demanding dignity sounds much like demanding respect. You can earn respect, but you have dignity. When Benjamin O. Davis Sr. was a young officer, deliberately sent to a Southern base from West Point, where he was ostracized, some white soldiers pretended not to see him so they would have to salute him.

He stepped into their path, and pointed at his uniform buttons, which bore the seal of the United States. He told them he didn't much care if they respected him or not, but they would show respect to the country represented by those buttons. Left unsaid, but hanging strongly in the air, was Davis' message "it is a good day to die."

They saluted. He never lost his dignity; no one gave it to him, and no one took it away from him. I can't speak of what the soldiers thought, but he earned my respect.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

You are responsible for your emotions. I am responsible for mine. You do not have the right to dictate mine, nor do I have the right to dictate yours.

I am responsible for my reactions to statements that you or others make. You or others, on hearing my reaction, might give some weight to it and change them. You might not.

The pursuit of happiness is easy enough to guarantee. Catching it is quite a different matter.

I now live in a fishing port. Commercial fishing happens to be among the most dangerous of occupations, but many of my neighbors do it because they love the sea and accept the risk. They won't get rich at it. It may be a tossup if hypothermia or drowning kills them first, or perhaps they just weren't careful on deck, and as a net line went taut, it sliced off their lower leg. They are adults and accept that responsibility.

Also in this area are rescue stations of the US Coast Guard. The official motto of the Coast Guard is semper paratus, or "always prepared." The unofficial motto, especially in the rescue teams is "you have to go out. You don't have to come back."

You do not have the right to tell me what I should or should not enjoy. You may try to take that right, but you will fail.

You do have an effect. The more I listen to you, the more hostile I am to Israel. I try to remember you aren't a representative of the state of Israel. You apparently don't even have the integrity to live there.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Actually, Jews can and do win constantly and fairly. The same may not be true of Zionists.

Not end a sentence with a proposition? This is arrant nonsense up with which I shall not put.

Never, in the course of human events, have so many, owed so much annoyance, to so few.

Such recognition would work to negate the right of return

Correct, I guess it means that the issuue we discuss is not a silly issue as MJ tried to pretend. Rather, it's the root issue of I/P conflict, desire or dream of Arabs do destroy one day Jewish state of Israel. I don't think it's silly for Israel to object to own destruction.

I thought you would mention Raleb. If that is the only thing you can say in response to my arguments then I think you really can not address them.

Random German and Japanese soldiers tended to be in decidedly nonrandom German and Japanese uniforms, behind nonrandom German and Japanese lines, and have quite a number of factors that made target identification clear.

Before answering about a terrorist, I need to know the quality of my identification. If those individuals were at an identified command or staging facility, and carrying military weapons, they are a legitimate target. Some random people in a village may not be.

In Vietnam, just firing on a random village that might contain the enemy, with no more evidence than that, tended to be counterproductive.

Try to be more specific with your tactical questions, Davai. Anyone ready to use military weaponry, especially on a side with modern sensors, has more information than you are giving. Tactical situations are not hypothetical.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

There is nothing new. 60 years ago US supported
the Partition Plan, according to which the British Mandate was to be divided into a JEWISH state and an ARAB state.

Here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Post article by Khaled Abu-Toameh. It should serve as a wake-up call for those who fall for the propaganda line we are constantly exposed to here that "the overwhelming majority of Palestinians support peace with Israel on the basis of the 2-state solution".
---------------------------------

At least 60 hurt in Fatah-Hamas clashes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 28, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Today we are going to break the bones of anyone who dares to demonstrate in the street," a Palestinian police officer shouted at a group of journalists as they arrived to cover the funeral of a man who was killed a day earlier during protests against the Annapolis peace conference.
"Are you from the Aksa TV?" another police officer jokingly asked a Danish TV crew, referring to the Hamas-run station.

The two officers were among some 300 policemen who were deployed outside the Hussein mosque in the center of this city to prevent an outbreak of violence during the funeral of Hisham al-Baradi, 37.

Baradi, a member of the Islamic fundamentalist Hizb al-Tahrir [Party of Liberation], was shot dead by security forces loyal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during fierce clashes that erupted here on Tuesday.

Determined to prevent a repeat of the anti-Annapolis demonstrations that swept the West Bank on Tuesday, PA security commanders issued firm orders to their men to use an "iron-fist" policy against anyone who breaks the law.
On the eve of the conference, the PA leadership in Ramallah, citing security concerns, banned all public protests.

But the ban did not prevent thousands from taking to the streets of West Bank cities to voice their opposition to the US-sponsored conference. The demonstrations, which came as a surprise to the PA leadership, were organized by both Hamas and Hizb al-Tahrir.

The harsh response of Abbas's security forces did not stop thousands of supporters of the two Islamist groups from participating in the funeral of Baradi on Wednesday.

Following noon prayers, the mourners, many of whom were carrying Hamas's green flags, tried to march toward the Palestinian policemen waiting outside the mosque.

But when they were blocked, some of them hurled empty bottles and stones at the nervous policemen, who responded by opening fire into the air from their Kalashnikov rifles.

For nearly 60 minutes, the area outside the mosque was turned into a battlefield reminiscent of the clashes that used to take place between Palestinians and IDF soldiers.

By the end of the day, residents said at least 60 people were injured, half of them policemen. Many residents expressed fear that the clashes signaled the beginning of a civil war among the Palestinians in the West Bank in the aftermath of Annapolis. Others said the protests and anarchy actually marked the beginning of the end of Abbas.

"I can't believe these are Palestinian policemen," said Ahmed Da'ana as he hid inside his shop to avoid the shooting. "They are behaving worse than the Israeli army. This is going to lead to civil war."

A woman who passed by as the policemen were still firing into the air and beating demonstrators broke into tears. "Shame on you!" she barked at the stunned policemen, some of whom had masks on their faces. "What's this? Is this what Arabs are doing to each other? Allahu Akbar [God is great]! Where are the Muslims? Where is the world?"

Brandishing his rifle, one of the policemen tried to silence her by shoving away the journalists who had gathered around her. Undeterred, she continued to hurl abuse at the policeman and his friends, accusing them of being collaborators with Israel and the US.

Then the same policeman went on to threaten a CNN correspondent that he would break his camera if he dared to broadcast his picture. A day earlier, several Palestinian journalists were severely beaten during the demonstrations by Palestinian policemen.

Senior PA officials have since apologized for the attacks on the journalists, vowing to launch an investigation.

Hizb al-Tahrir spokesman Maher Ja'bari, who attended the funeral, said Baradi had been killed only because he dared to express his opinion during a public protest. Like many residents of Hebron, which has long been known as a stronghold for Hamas and other Islamic organizations, Ja'bari said he believed that Abbas was on his way to losing control over the West Bank.

"I believe this is the end of the Oslo Authority because all papers are now on the table and there's nothing left to hide," he said. "They are talking very clearly now. They are accepting Israel and the resolutions that are against Islam.

So they cannot have public support any more.

---rest of article cut----

Yes, that would be my plan. Open borders for everyone where your religion would inform your life, not your neighbor's and a person's ethnicity would be as meaningless as his origin of birth.

Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Sikh, Bhuddist, why should someone else's superstitions bother me?

The large majority of Israelis agree with me that the Arabs are not prepared to make peace with Israel under any conditions. The disagreement is largely over what to do about it. My position, as you have seen, is to oppose any political or territorial concessions (as opposed to economic and local arrangements), and to add that the only chance for peace is when the Arabs see that Israel is not going to capitulate. Israeli concessions only harden the Arab attitude. Even David Horowitz in a recent editorial in the Jerusalem Post (which I would define as politically "centrist" and pro-Kadima party) stated that it seems that the Arabs feel that they do not have to make any compromises with Israel because they feel they are going to get everything eventually without them giving anything away. This was Olmert/Kadima's position before the elections..a large-scale unilateral withdrawal. Although currently it is off the table, once these negotiations lead to their inevitable dead-end, the unilateral option will arise once again.
It is Olmert's awareness of this majority Israeli opinion that made him make his demand that the Arabs recognize Israel as the "homeland of the Jewish people". This means the Arabs are going to have to give up the Palestinian "Right of return" because having Israel recognize it in even a limited form means that the creation of Israel was a historic crime (as Abbas himself says even today) and that the Arabs have the right to struggle against the Jewish state even if a "peace agreement" is achieved, because such a "peace agreement" will be presented to the Palestinians as simply a temporary, limited cease-fire, just as Sadat explained his agreement with Israel to his own people. (Don't worry, Olmert will give up this demand, just like he will give up all the rest of his "red lines").
BTW-I know you and other "progressives" are obsessed with the Judea/Samaria settlements, but polls show most Israelis oppose dismantling most if not all of them.

You knew about Majdele and still asserted that Israeli Arabs are barred from serving in government.  That's not arguing, that's lying.

You make a great point: A nation should be protected to the extent it is legitimate, i.e., it protects the rights and aspirations of the greatest number of its citizens.

Since this measure is not about protecting ALL the citizens of Israel, it is illegitimate.

Thanks MJ for raising the discourse. It really is tiresome to listen to people, particulary other journalists, feel quite comfortable using overt racist language about Arabs and Palestinians. How many times have you seen people use words like "swarm," "clean out," and "sea of Arabs"? Nice non-human terms! Can you imagine Joe Klein writing for Newsweek that Palestinians face "a swarm of new Jews descending on the West Bank. Local Palestinians fear they will find themselves adrift in a sea of Jews"?

Not a chance.

Why is "separatist" a loaded term for "Jewish State"? I think its accurate, just as "Arab State" can be defined as separatist. Do I live in an American State?
Hardly.

That non Arabs are allowed to live in Arab States, just as non Israelis or non Jews are allowed to live in Israel means to me that Jewish State as well as Arab State are misnomers.

Andrew Weakland said:

Exactly, so why not just say "Israel is a democratic state with a Jewish character"

I find Andrew's characterization more accurate than "Jewish State", though as I said, its a mouthful. For accuracy, I prefer to use "Israel."

Peter,

We agree, I think, that a reasonably small number of generations, quite possibly with documentation requirements, is not unreasonable. Another aspect is that it's a fairly simple process to go back to available demographics of the grandparents' generation and predict how many people could return. Now, the Irish run to large families, but it's not likely to be 100 descendants per grandparents. This even lets the Irish authorities and electorate estimate how their society might be affected by return.

As you point out, going back thousands of years isn't going to work, if for no other reason that if everyone theoretically able to do it did so, it would totally change the character of the society.

To address your point about "most Jews will never exercise this right", there's a pretty basic rule taught to fledgling intelligence analysts: "unless you are specifically tasked to deliver an analysis of our best guess at what is in the leadership of country/military unit $FOO, you estimate based on capabilities, not intentions."

The Soviets, by and large, probably did not believe the US would launch a nuclear first strike at them, but they prepared for it anyway. There are neighbors of Israel that probably don't think Israel will use its nuclear weapons on them, but they don't know that, and there is an undercurrent that several may decide it is in their "supreme national interest" -- a term of diplomatic art -- to abrogate their NPT participation and try to build nuclear weapons.

I am about as certain as I can be of anything that the ultimate loyalty of most Americans is to their birthplace. Nevertheless, given things such as the Pollard class, things like right of return, and claims that Israel is really the state of "all Jews" by some mystical definition that doesn't have to be religious, some finite number of generations, or anything that I can understand, has the unfortunate potential of making utterly loyal people suspect. If Ireland were a significant military power, there would be a very similar potential, although their much more restrictive right of return puts better-defined bounds on it.

To me, for a state to announce it is the "Jewish" state, not the "Zionist" state, the latter with absolutely no negative connotations, is offensive to the ill-defined Jews that might be continued returnees.

When George W. Bush says, in the absence of treaties, that the US is committed to maintain Israel as a "Jewish state", I get very nervous. He isn't doing this for high-minded reasons of national identity. If he truly believed in self-determination, he'd be pressing for full relations with Cuba.

As I said, capabilities, not intentions. I don't know, and probably don't want to know, what is going on in the heads of Bush and Cheney. But do you want to trust Cheney enough to go bird hunting with him?

It's a bit sad -- Celtic archetypes are spiritually appealing to me, but I have, to the best of my knowledge, no Irish connection other than drinking green beer and eating green bagels on the appropriate day.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Depends on your definition of murder, I suppose. Most military lawyers consider that a free-lancing operation, not responsive to the chain of command and not in any form of self defense.

Are you suggesting that it was murder, for example, for a British bomber, during the Battle of Britain, to raid a German fighter base in France and kill as many uniformed personnel as possible? The selection of that base was because it provided the escort fighters that helped the bombers that had been hitting your cities, and there was photographic and communications intelligence that they were getting ready to launch another strike that night.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Davai have you read W&M? The principle point of their articiles, I have not read their book, is that Israel is not deserving of American support. Therefore, they ask, how does Israel have the support of the United States?. Their answer is the Israeli Lobby.

Daniel Levy when he commented on the articles when they were originally published rewrote them to mean AIPAC was the Israeli Lobby. However, W&M explicity deny they mean AIPAC. They talk about an amorphous group that includes Evangelicals and others. When they explain how this lobby has its power it comes down to Jews voting for and giving large amounts of money to Democratic candidates. It is clear that the Lobby is transfered into American Jews and their inordinate power.

W&M go beyond blaming the war in Iraq on "The Jews." They suggests that the neo-Cons, though he is a bit vague about where Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, fit into this catagory, put the interests of Israel ahead of the United States. Thus the old charge of disloyalty larged against Jews.

Maybe Rosenberg is simiply a sloppy reader but there is no doubt that W&M use ancient anti-Semitic charges to make their case and Rosenberg never misses an opportunity to promote them. Leading to a threads of endless moronic attacks on Israel and are oblivious to how many Jews will be killed. My definition of anti-Semiticism.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Howard, please don't let the likes of Davai influence your view of Israel. His politics are entirely driven by his embarrassment at having chosen the United States over Israel when he emigrated from the USSR.
There are some terrible people in Israel. That I will concede, just as there are terrible people everywhere.
But you will find no more noble a specimen of humanity than the socialist Israelis who built the country and their progeny. Israel is a country in which every major institution including the army was built by the socialist left.
True, Israel has, to an extent, been hijacked by the right (which has never built anything but is great at destroying). But their day will pass.

Davai is as representative of Israel as a random guy in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Bar K, on the other hand, is representative of the Israeli far right and the settlers.

Israel made an experiment, “the foot was removed from the Palestinians’ neck and they were helped up and freed” in Gaza. there world was ready to help the ideas was, the Gasa first, but Palestinian leaders choose violence.

but don't you think that if they really wanted to destroy Israel that Israel would look more like Iraq?

some refugees returning