Amen, MJ, Amen.

And I agree, the question is well put.

Very clever, in the GOOD sense of the term.

and then maybe bash Walt-Mearsheimer and Jimmy Carter for good measure

mcs,

as far as I see it, "Annapolis" was a dog and pony show.

Why?  What were your expectations, and how did the conference fall short of them?

Fair enough.  I could agree with you about the dog-&-pony aspect of the conference, at least where Bush & Co. are concerned.  But at the same time, I believe that the principal parties take it all very seriously.  My greater hope tends toward the Arab League delegations' willingness to enable the Israelis' sense of confidence in their security with real policies that normalize relations with Israel.  I am confident that such tangible efforts would create the political atmosphere for Olmert's government to succeed in meeting their obligations, and also motivate the Palestinians to build and maintain the civil infrastructure necessary to emerge as a functional state.

MJ says "talking is better than not talking". Under current circumstances, the opposite is true. Starting with Oslo in 1993, each time there have been "negotiations", progress, optimism", there has been an INCREASE in violence. Violence was minimal when there was NO "progress". Oslo was signed in 1993, and was followed by the first wave of suicide bombings. Oslo II was signed shortly before Rabin was assassinated. Israel then pulled its forces out of the Arab towns and then a bigger wave of suicide bombings occurred which had Arafat's explicit approval (this was revealed in the Knesset by Peres in response to a question by Benny Begin). It was this wave that caused Peres to lose the 1996 election. Netanyahu's election slowed "progress" down and there was a significant decrease in violence. Barak in 2000 tried to wrap up a final agreement at Camp David and later at Taba and this led to the biggest wave of terrorism Israel had ever seen, with over 1000 murdered and thousands more wounded. Sharon replace Barak and finally, after the Pesach Night massacre in Netanya in 2002, Sharon was finally forced to move against the Palestinians, and their towns were reoccupied, and after eight years, Israel was able to begin regular anti-terrorist operations in addition to locking Arafat up in his Mukata HQ in Ramallah, which led to a major improvement in the security situation. Sharon then decided to throw away all the advantages this had brought
and to destroy Gush Katif. This brought the big increase in rocket fire from the Gaza Strip and the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit and killing of IIRC another soldierthere, in addition to encouraging HIZBULLAH to attack across the northern border killing and kidnapping more soldiers.
Thus, we see here that negotiations with terrorists (I am including the whole Palestinian Authority and Abbas in this category) simply encourages them to attack. Their policy is to negotiate and kill at the same time. They view Israel's pushing for negotiations and willingness to make concessions as weakness and this encourages the violence. When Israel stands fast, they lose the motiviation to attack, seeing that it doesn't help. Thus, the way to make peace is not through nonsensicle theatrics like Annapolis, but by Israel REFUSING to make concessions, and by putting off INFORMAL talks about improving the lives of the Arabs in an economic and security sense
until the Arabs prove they are willing to live as civilized human beings and reject the cult of death they have adopted.

MJ,

Just wanted to offer props on the mention in last week's Economist article "Cinderella at Annapolis." Fourth graf, nicely done. 

~~~~~~~~~~~

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym

Apparently the Jewish Lobby knows no bounds.

From Haaretz.com:

ALGIERS - France's Foreign Ministry expressed surprise Wednesday about an Algerian government minister's remarks about a "Jewish lobby" being behind French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

TDaniel A. Greenbaum

Why would having Israel govern the Israeli Arabs in perpetuity be any different than ruling Arab parts of Jerusalem? Arabs in Jerusalem are entitled to full Israeli citizenship if they want it, and even if they don't, they get National Insurance benefits.

"Even though I have no idea as to what is going on, am not a party to the negotiations, do not know the parameters or metrics of the talks nor am I privy to any discussions, promises, guarantees or rewards promised to the participants, have no access to private discussions, conversations and negotiations and have not personally assessed the situation and having no personal involvement whatsoever,I wholeheartedly support and endorse PM Olmert in whatever is going on at Annapolis because no matter how ignorant or in the dark I am as to the details or process some people want me to throw prudence and caution to the wind and utter a blind, uneducated endorsement as a litmus test of leadership."

Yours truly,
The candidate

DanielGree said:

Walt-Mearsheimer and Carter express anti-Semitic views over and over.

Rosenberg never fails to support these bigots.

If someone told me Jesse Jackson supports
David Duke I doubt if I'd believe them.

MJ you point out the one positive thing that I have seen come out of Annapolis and that is to open a discussion in national politics for the creation of a Westbank Palestinian state. The conference itself was designed, perhaps out of Rice's sheer incompetence, to fail. We could even be in a worse place today than before.

There is one thing that has emerged that may have set back future talks. This is the new demand, so enthusiastically endorsed by Pipes, that the Palestinians must now recognize Israel as a Jewish state, not just recognize Israel as a state which has already been done. Possibly Olmert made this demand simply to appeal to the Israeli right and it can be forgotten. But if not it is a deal killer.

Has any country in the world recognized Israel as a "Jewish" state? What does that mean? Someone provide a definition. Then will rest of the world be required to recognize this new entity? By what definition can one come up with that would not relegate Christian and Moslem Israeli citizens to second class status? How could any Palestinian accept such a demand? Just asking these questions and thinking a few seconds about their implications shows the utter and total bad faith on the part of Israel to even place this demand on the table.

What other country in the world demands that other states formally recognize the perpetual right to dominance of its dominant ethnic group? This is just another moving goalpost.

syvanen,

You are making the common mistake of limiting Jewish identity strictly to its religious component.  To whatever extent that certain national components of Jewish identity may be rooted in ancient and medieval religious traditions is by now beside the point.  Israel is a Jewish state the same way 23 member nations of the Arab League are Arab states.

Thanks, Eric. By the way, I'm on Bill Moyers Journal Friday tonight on PBS discussing the Christian Zionists.
MJ

But do these states require other states to recognize this? Is there even a formal mechanism by which other states recognize the right of Ireland to exist as an "Irish state"?

Ireland's right of return requires that the prospective Irish returnee be able to demonstrate at least one grandparent born in Ireland. Much as I find meaning in the Celtic tradition of the Tuatha de Danann, as much as I find appealing the archetype of Lugh Ildanach and the exchange between Lugh and Nuada's doorkeeper, there's no recognition of ancient rights, of an identity more than two generations old.

I believe Germany and several other countries have roughly the same rule for right of return as a citizen: one grandparent born in a place that was part of the nation at the time of birth.

These are reasonably objective standards. Ironically, even the Nuremberg Laws of the Third Reich essentially went back two generations, although far further for such dubious honors as being qualified to join the SS.

Not all of these states, incidentally, recognize dual citizenship. If you want to claim citizenship when you return, you commit to it, much as certain people affixed their signatures to a document pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. No reserve citizenship if things aren't what you expected.

I know we disagree about Jewish identity being other than religious. Still, the idea of establishing personal descent within a verifiable historical period, and restricting return to those, strikes me as reasonable.

Luckily, I can prove I was born in the miasma of Newark, New Jersey. I happened to work on the first automated version of the US immigration system, and, as part of our orientation, the INS people offered us the option tracing our ancestry. Even though I knew the names of the vessels on which my grandparents arrived, the approximate date, and the port of entry, there was no record in the archives. For that period, they were ledgers from Ellis Island, and also ship manifests. Couldn't find anyone, even when we got my grandmother on the phone to help in narrowing it down.

One of the things that really bothers me is the idea of a Biblical right to land, somehow beyond the UN partition resolution.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Where is the proof that Walt-Mearsheimer are anti-Semitic except you saying so? And is that all it takes? I also question the utility of ethnic lobbies on foreign policy. I guess that means I hate Jewish-, Cuban-, Irish- Armenian- Pakistani- and Indian-Anericans, among so many others.

Or...it could mean your libel of Walt-Mearsheimer is just that: libel.

Andrew Weakland,

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?

Israeli non-Jews in fact are enfranchised within the electoral system, and there are Arab parties represented in Israel's parliament (Knesset).  Israel is ruled by civil law, not rabbinic law (halacha).  Admittedly, Israel's society needs to catch up with the spirit of its civil law, and that is why there is a body of case law before its independent civil judiciary (again, not a rabbinic court [beit din]) regarding issues like land ownership.  Israel is a democratic state with a Jewish character, much the same way Ireland is a democratic state with a Celtic character, or Lebanon struggles to be a democratic state with an Arab character.

Ireland and Germany determine who gets to be Irish and German.  If it is to be considered somehow nefarious that Israel determine who gets to be Israeli, then that consideration appears to be discriminatory.

The status of Israeli Arabs is altogether different from that of the Arabs in the Palestinian territories, because there was a war launched against Israel from the Arab countries that had been occupying those territories before Israel was.  Israel needs to end the occupation, for its own sake if not for the sake of the people of the territories.  Meanwhile, you keep imposing a bogus limitation on Jewish identity depending on the religion of Judaism.  That is arrogant and it is wrong.  So, you should stop that.

Than if Arab (or any other) states recognize Israel diplomatically, what would be the need for a separate recognition of "Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state"?

It is not a "separate recognition" as long as only three out of 23 member nations of the Arab League recognize Israel diplomatically.

But if you say Israel not only is a Jewish state, but "has the right to exist as a Jewish state" what would this imply, in a hypothetical situation where Israeli Arabs, as a result of differing rates of population growth, have become the majority of the Israeli population? Would preserving Israel's Jewish character justify depriving Arabs of the franchise or even expelling them from the country? And if the "right to exist as a Jewish state" doesn't imply that, what does it mean?

Ok, do those three states then have the obligation for the second recognition? Why in the case of Israel and not in that of Ireland? 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.

Okay, well let's look at this way...

Should a Palestinian state be founded, what will it be called?

The State of Palestine.

A Free Democratic State with equal rights for all that just happens to have a lot of Palestinians in it.

Will the state have the right to restrict who moves there? Will they have the right to have immigration quotas? Do you think they will be open to a lot of non-Palestinians moving there?

The Palestinians are seeking the right of return. If the right is attached to the new state, will there be room for all other peoples who might want to move there? Will any other people have the right to move there?

Israel is a Jewish state the way the State of Palestine will be a Palestinian state. Their whole quest for a state is to have a state FOR the Palestinian people, not just any old people who wish to live there.

Somehow, we accept the idea that a Palestinian state would be (at least primarily) for Palestinians. But that same idea doesn't seem to flow so naturally when we are talking about the Jewish people and their state. Maybe because Jews also are attached to a religion, whereas Palestinians are both Christian and Muslim. But what if they were only Muslim?

Besides which...

Israel, and Zionism as such, emerged as a reaction to overwhelming anti-Semitism. I think it's safe to say that had the Holocaust not occurred, Jews themselves would not have moved to the region as they did. Of course, there were many positive aspects to the founding as well; but I'm not sure they would have been enough.

Now, I agree, we've had it "up to here" with the Holocaust. But really, for Jews, it's a recent event, much the way the naqba is a recent event for Palestinians. Living people's brother, sisters, and fathers and mothers died there. Some people don't have grandparents because of the Holocaust. And there was the expulsion from many Arab countries after 1948...

So I think until the memory of the Holocaust becomes distant...until anti-Semitism really becomes a chapter of history and not something that periodically recurs in, say, France, or Argentina or Russia...and perhaps until OTHER groups, such as the Muslims in Saudi Arabia say, "You're right, let's have the Free Democratic State of SA where all can come and live and worship as they please without fear...and anyone can become a citizen with full rights...until that time, a lot of Jews (though hardly all) will just feel better about having a Jewish state.

And really, it hardly takes up any room at all--certainly not compared to its neighbors.

When you look around the world, it isn't as big an anomaly as you might think, living here.

Now, I already feel Howard breathing down my neck...so, gotta go!

syvanen,

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.

How so?  Israel's non-Jewish citizens are Israelis.  Politically, non-Jewish Israelis are fully enfranchised, if unfortunately they remain socially contrained.  But I like to think that once the conflict is on its way to resolution, the civil and human rights circumstances in Israel will begin to sort itself out.  Don't you think Palestine's non-Arab citizens will enjoy equal rights within the Palestinian legal structure?

William Burns,

And if the "right to exist as a Jewish state" doesn't imply that, what does it mean?

It means that the Jewish people has national rights equal to the national rights that Arab peoples assert in states that heve the right to exist as Arab states.

hcberkowitz,

I would really like to know if Israel's definition is generally consistent with those major nations that claim an ethnic identity.

I believe the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs can provide the details.  They have a website, I don't know the URL off the top of my head, but a Google search will get you there.

But does national legitimacy really depend so much upon a matter of degree?  Have we redefined the idea of national sovereignty so that some aspect of international law requires consistency of citizenship requirements for, say, membership in the UN General Assembly?

Such a silly issue

The Moscow initiative on the front page of the Wapo today strikes me as positive--even if it is just Russia trying to keep her hand in.

Rosenberg never fails to support these bigots.

Notice how, once again, MJ reflexively blames Israel and misses the main point to boot.  If it's such a silly, trivial issue, why are Arabs making such a big deal out of it?  They could easily issue a statement saying something like "We recognize that the goal of negotiations is two states living side by side in peace, one Jewish and one Arab."  It would go a long way to shoring up support in Israel for concessions.  The fact that they refuse is significant.  This isn't like the demand that they "dismantle the terror infrastructure" something that probably isn't even possible even if Abbas wanted to do it.  This is a simple statement. 

It just exposes the Palestinians for what they are: duplicitous hucksters who will bank any Israeli concession and continue the fight indefinitely.

There is no reason that a means can't be devised to keep Jerusalem physically undivided but administratively separate

Well, we also have the reverse arguments being made, i.e., that certain land is "Palestinian" land. That never seems to cause a problem.

But does national legitimacy really depend so much upon a matter of degree?

Have we redefined the idea of national sovereignty so that some aspect of international law requires consistency of citizenship requirements for, say, membership in the UN General Assembly?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

It causes problems every day of the week and both sides do it.

"It just exposes the Palestinians for what they are: duplicitous hucksters...."

I guess the only people on earth it is acceptable to make racist statements about is the Arabs, Palestinians, in particular.

Just imagine if someone wrote: "It just exposes the Jews for what they are: duplicitous hucksters...."

Sickening stuff.

Politically, non-Jewish Israelis are fully enfranchised, if unfortunately they remain socially contrained.

Sort of like American blacks were socially constrained in the South up until recently. Like real estate covenants that restrict Arabs from buying land. The use of live bullets to suppress Arab street demonstrations but complete nonviolent techniques to deal with Jews. Arabs can vote but their representatives are barred from serving in government. Citizenship rights for Jews living in the Westbank but not for the Arabs.

I don't care how you cut it, this sounds like second class citizenship. That is the facts on the ground today. However, the Palestinians will not officially agree to accept these facts. If that is what you demand, then do not expect an agreement with them.

And while we have been discussing the Annapolis conference and the issues that came with it, the bluebell family turkey and corn casserole didn't come up at all here either.  Go figure.

See, that is why there is a peace process happening, and why I support it.

Arabs can vote but their representatives are barred from serving in government.

That's bullshit.  Raleb Majadele is the Israeli Minister of Science, a cabinet portfolio.  If you have a real argument, you shouldn't have to make shit up.

I can imagine, you wrote some many racist statements about religious and Russian Jew, that I don't think you should so shocked by such statements.

Yeah, but the women cooking the turkey and the corn casserole get to caucus on January 3rd.

Now for what did come up over the stuffing - jobs, manufacturing, Asian competition, real estate prices, farm prices, college tuition, taxes, Iraq, and the stock market.

My point is that it is stupid. I don't care if it is Serbian, Croat, Israeli or Palestinian. People using religion to rationalize and justify cruelty and misery intentionally inflicted upon each other.

Zionista - Is Israel going to require every country in the world to recognize it as a Jewish state? Is Israel willing to have diplomatic relations with countries who insist Israel is JUST a "country".

Please drop the "poor abused Israel" meme. It doesn't befit you or Israel. The Jewish state enjoys worldwide economic and social ties, it has a powerful military and it's citizens enjoy first world benefits. If you want to feel sorry for someone, how about the poor sucker who was unlucky enough to have been born in the Congo.

Israel and Jews already have dignity - there are a few billion others who do not.

Should the Chechens have a nation

Shouldn't Israel be demanding that the US give all the dignity to Cuba

Because the Arabs are already reluctant to recognize Israel due to its Jewishness, there should be an extra clause further emphasizing its Jewishness and requiring the Arabs to acknowledge it even more explicitly. This clause will be legally meaningless, but will further humiliate the Arabs (and will not, at least according to anything I've seen, be balanced by any Israeli acknowledgement of the Palestinian right to a state, speaking of people who are economically boycotted, culturally demonized, and politically isolated).

This is fine if your goal is to block an agreement, but it seems peculiar if you actually want one.

Reviewing your statement again, I have little problem with Israel deciding who gets to be an Israeli, but I have an intense problem with it being the self-appointed Jewish state and assuming it is the sole legal representative of the Palestinian Jewish people. That rhetoric sounds like Arafat's insistence on dignity for the PLO.

Yes, I am angry.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/929230.html

It was November 29, 1947. The United Nations General Assembly had just passed Resolution 181 - the Partition Plan, according to which the British Mandate was to be divided into a Jewish state and an Arab state

The question is, Do Arab countries including Palestinians finally accept partition of British Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state? Unless they accept such partition, there is not going to be any peace.

Yes, I am angry.

I don't dictate you anyting, it's just a friendly advice, you're free to take it or ignore it.
In any case just because I suggest you to enjoy life you are going yo hate Israel.
See, Jews can't never win.
Do me a favor, please No more Chirchill, please, I would rather have Chairman Mao.

Don.

You've hit on the REAL issues hiding underneath the self-righteous bleating about Arab/Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Such recognition would work to negate the right of return. Olmert has been hounding world leaders to say the majik words and FM Tzipi Livni thinks that Israel as a Jewish State means transfer of Israeli Arabs to the semi-OT of "a Palestinian State".

Then there are those hopes that both the WB and Gaza will become the subjects of the Hashemite Dumpling King of Jordan that still lie a-smoldering in some quarters.

For some reason, a recent poll of Israeli Arabs shows overwhelming opposition to the notion that the Abbas/Fayyad/(Dahlan) collaborators have any authority to negotiate anything at all.

Today, Israeli envoy to the UN Dan Gillerman told the Arabs assembled there that they should be give thanks and be joyful for the "gift" of Israel.

" Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman spoke to the UN General Assembly on Thursday, the anniversary of the 1947 UN decision to create two states in British Mandatory Palestine and the UN’s “Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.” Gillerman insisted that despite Arab states’ mourning, the day should be one of celebration. “On this date, the world got a gift: a state which contributes to humanity more than all the countries in the UN that mourn on this day.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/137351

Thanks and Bravo! to all the Israeli truth-tellers who are growing more and more alarmed at the mounting threats from within that will irrevocably erode Israel's democratic values. May they find more American partners in their struggles to keep the light(s) on, especially among the young.

The words of the UNRWA official in charge of Gaza should be spoken before Congress and the UN General Assembly in addition to the British MPs who were briefed on the situation:

""I am compelled to discard the usual niceties of diplomatic speak and say to you bluntly," (John) Ging ended his speech to the parliament members, "the current policy of collective punishment and inhumane illegal sanctions against the civilian population in Gaza is actually supporting the agenda of the extremists.

"Today's youth are tomorrow's leaders. They don't make the decisions today but will be shaped by ours and will in their turn shape successor generations. Now is our moment to influence not just the present but also the future. We won't have a second chance. It is an urgent and awesome responsibility with the most profound and far-reaching consequences."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/928363.html

Howard.

Speaking of Israel's military, does this "Tit for Tat" policy of random killings of Hamas members in retaliation for attacks by any entity, including Fatah's Al Aqsa Brigades, fit acceptable modern military doctrine?

Arutz Sheva provides the only English information on this new IDF wrinkle:

" The attack on a Hamas terrorist position in Khan Yunis Wednesday afternoon which killed two was the first sign of a new IDF policy regarding Gaza terrorists. Military sources told Maariv/NRG that from now on, the IAF will attack a random Hamas target in Gaza every time a mortar shell or rocket hits an Israeli community, and will no longer limit itself to striking the terrorists who launched the rockets.

They said that the IDF has now established that Hamas is behind all of the terror emanating from Gaza and will thus retaliate against Hamas targets regardless of which organization takes credit for terror attacks.

After a salvo of mortar shells landed near the security fence near Nahal Oz at around 3 P.M. Wednesday, IAF aircraft retaliated by attacking a Hamas position in southern Gaza. Gaza Arabs said one of those killed in the IAF strike was Rami Abu-Rus, an active member of Hamas. At least 10 people were wounded in the mission."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124411

Two of the random Hamas members murdered by the Israelis on Wed were Palestinian Naval police officers. 5 were injured in the assault on the beach at Khan Yunis. I Believe the count of kills under this day(s)- after-Annapolis implementation stands at 6 thus far.

In general, I would say random killing of Hamas members does not make a great deal of military sense. There are circumstances, in more conventional warfare, where there may be a rationale, such as snipers killing sentries as a psychological technique to reduce the effectiveness of snipers.

If a side is going to use selective killing, however, it tends to be most effective when highly targeted, such that it both sends a message that even key personnel are not safe, and also gives security people reason to wonder if they might be penetrated, or their communications intercepted, or some other reason to increase suspicion internal to the organization. This sort of selective killing is a slow, deliberate process; it may take a sniper team (or teams) several days of observation to take a single shot. There is some reason to believe that a rifle shot out of nowhere may be even more demoralizing than, say, an attack helicopter firing a heavy missile into a headquarters building. If the latter is the only way to get to the target, though, it may be appropriate, and within the laws of war if it is a clear leadership target.

I'd want to know more about the proportionality of air attacks in response to mortar attacks. I don't rule out air attacks, with precision guided weapons of limited power, as inappropriate. Purely from a psychological perspective, the greatest impact is either from extremely selective and precise fire, or from absolutely flattening a military target area.

Given that Israel is quite well equipped with mortar and rocket tracking sensors, they have the capability to direct fire onto the launching location. Yes, if the weapon was fired by a timer, more practical with a rocket than a mortar, you may not hit the crew. Then again, you may. Conventional forces use "shoot and scoot", because they know counterfire may be on its way in 15-30 seconds, before their rounds may land. When you have a firing team driving like hell to get out of an area, the chances of it being spotted by a UAV or other sensor go up dramatically.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

It's an interesting question.
Should US only murder Al Queda terrorists how are about to commit terrorist act or is it OK to murder random Al Queda members.
In WW2 did US ever murdered random Japanese or German soldiers or only after they kill American soldiers?

Here is an interview in Ha'aretz with Tony Blair who is the representative of the "Quartet" to the Palestinians.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=929898

In the following excerpt, he gives the reasons why there will never be a Palestinian state (he doesn't phrase it that way, he believes that under current conditions there can't be a Palestinian state, but he is "optimistic" that the necessary changes can be made):

----------------------------
Blair no longer believes that "land for peace," in and of itself, is sufficient. He made this point emphatically in a speech he delivered a few weeks ago at the Saban Forum in Jerusalem. What is no less important, in his view, is the character of the Palestinian state. He wants to see a state with stable institutions that are properly run, particularly from the security point of view. He constantly reiterates that in talks with senior PA officials, and baldly warns them: "There won't be a Palestinian state unless it is coherently governed and run, and anyone who tells you different is misleading you."
-------------------------------------

My point is that Blair is correct regarding the current conditions, but I maintain that they can not be changed under for the foreseeable future, unlike what he seems to believe. This is why the unpopular position that I and others take is so crucial for understanding the situation----THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PALESTINIAN NATIONAL IDENTITY.
What Blair is demanding is that the Palestinians build a "coherent, stable" civil society and such things do not exist in the Arab world. All Arab countries, even the supposedly "liberal" ones like Jordan and Tunisia, are really iron-fisted dictatorships. The Arab societies are simply too fractious to make the kind of cooperative civil society we in the West take for granted. The Palestinians do not view their "Palestinity" as the basis of their identity, they (like the rest of the Arab world) identify primarily through their clan and family groupings. Thus, only brute force can get society to work. Even an extremely popular leader like Nasser was forced to use harsh police-state methods to insure his rule.
Thus, Blair can not serve the role of facilitating building "a coherent Palestinian state" as many Europeans think. The Arabs have nothing to learn from the West in how to run (what in their eyes) is a successful state. What is a "successful Arab state" which can serve as a model for Abbas and his FATAH people? Syria (Assad family in power for 37 years), Saddam's Iraq (stayed in power for something like 40 years until ousted by outside military force), Egypt (Mubarak in power 26 years and poised to hand power over to his son), Jordan (Hashemites in power at least 64 years), Saudi Arabia (Al-Saud family in power 104 years, at least), Libya (Qaddafi in power 38 years, poised to hand power over to son), etc, etc. These are successful regimes in Arab eyes. They are successful NOT because they provide services and prosperity for their people, but rather because they have perfected their Mukhabarat secret police forces who have successfully suppressed all attempts to organize opposition against the rulers of these various countries. This is what Abbas and the FATAH people need to learn, and I think they are. They don't need some "great White father to come and bring the natives civilization" (i.e. builiding a western-type cooperative civil society) because those skills are irrelevant in the Arab world.
One of the important tricks that many of these leaders, particularly Assad, Mubarak and Jordan's Abdallah have used is to build up and tolerate to a point a radical Islamic movement. Of course, they don't want it to be strong enough to threaten their power, but they do want it to make a lot of noise so that these leaders can then go to the Americans and Bush and say "if you push me too hard and threaten to cut aid because we don't cooperate with you or that the aid you give us is stolen due to corruption, then I will be overthrown and you will get a pro-Iranian nightmare regime here". That has worked wonders up until now. I even believe that Abbas was secretly glad that HAMAS took over Gaza, since he had minimal control there anyway and now the Americans have to let him do whatever he wants (e.g continue siphoning off the aid) because "they don't want HAMAS to take over the rest). A very comfortable situation for him. Thus, Blair is wasting his time.

Bar K, funny hearing from you on this. As a settler, you are a big part of the problem. For me, listening to you on I-P peace is like hearing Bull Connor on civil rights. Why do you bother?

It isn't okay for Americans to murder anyone, that's vigilanti justice.

Yes, in WW II soldiers murdered other soldiers and that was a war crime.

Capitulations? Concessions? The Palestinians (i.e the PLO and the PA) have agreed to establish their state on 22% of historic Palestine (no, historic Palestine does not include Transjordan) and you talk about concessions.

If you move into my house and then you agree to leave, you are not making a concession. Nablus, Hebron, Jenin etc are not Israel. But thanks for posting. You exemplify the rightwing fundamentalist 01settler nuttiness Olmert has to deal with.

Have you considered moving back to Israel? It's a nice country.

What's your point? Does Iran set international norms of behavior now?

I actually have relatives who are "Israeli Arabs" and some who are Palestinians in the West Bank. It is farcical for you to claim that Israel's Arab citizens have "equal rights." They are subject to discrimination housing, employment, and education. Separate, but equal, anyone?

Any political system that draws distinctions between its citizens is flawed and subject to criticism and change. Look out America: We have been differntiating African-Americans for 400 years. And to the extent they still lack equal rights, then we should be criticized.

Democracy means equality, not identity.

Why is it a problem if the Palestinains live on it? I guess if Mexico claims the Southwest that makes their claim equal to those of us who actually live here now.

(Davai, you should comment without mentioning MJ. Try it.) But who is charting a course that could destroy Israel? I think if the foot was removed from the Palestinians’ neck and they were helped up and freed, a deal could be worked out where all benefit.

Both sides have to empathize and see the other’s POV but the Palestinians can only see dirt as long as they are held down. Of course, the Pals resist occupation but don't you think that if they really wanted to destroy Israel that Israel would look more like Iraq?

I don’t think either a generous two-state solution with some refugees returning and some resettled or even a one-state democratically ”shared” country would be the end of Israel or even change the Jewish character of it.

Obviously Bush and the Right aren't the only people who deny reality. Whether Walt, Mearsheimer or Carter are themselves bigots is likr whether Reagan was a bigot irrelevant. However, they use anti-Semitism to promote their views and arguments using the oldest forms of the secret Jewish cabal. Then there are people like Rosenberg who seems to support every any view that will make him a hero to the anti-semitic left and which in all likelihood will lead to lots of dead Jews.

Finally there are the mirror imagines of the Bush supports. Fact denying, but sanctimonious. What such people think is of little importance.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

In his Government post, does Raleb Majadele represent Palestinians or Israel?

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.

Great,
BTW, Wo is your favorite candidate in this elections and does he shares your views?
In any case, why don't you start with pushing for open border betweeb USA and Mexico first?
Let us know when you achive this. I hope, I'll be alive when this happen.

Of course I'm not a representative of Israel, I'm not an Israeli. I don't represent anybody.
As we all know, you have no shame. Yes, I emigrated from the USSR to US, I feel no embarrassment, and I as many other Russian Jews supoort Israel. You you are not going to silence us. Shame on you, little small minded bigot.
My politics are politics of majority Israeli people, Ameican Jews, American people in general and Democratic voters specifically.
Your views are marginal views supported by a small minority on the Left. Tell us MJ, which next President will give you a jobs? No one. You would not get a job in Kuchinich administration. Such a loser.

"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."

Howard, you have a number of arguments, I think, tangled up here.

First, the Zionist idea is not one idea, but a variety which point to creating a separate state. Some focus on the "negative" (fear); some focus on the "resigned" (we can never win acceptance as French, etc.); and some focus on the positive (a renaissance of Jewish culture).

But, as a practical matter, I argue Israel would never have come into existence had the fears not been borne out. And not just in the Holocaust, but in the expulsions from Arab lands and in flair ups of anti-Semitism in Argentina, France, Russia, etc.

Fear is a huge motivator. But now that Israel is in existence, fear (the negative) is hardly its only raison d'etre, though it remains an important factor and is, I would argue, the real reason for the law of return, not any biblical exhortation (though, of course, it grows out of a traditional and oft-repeated desire/intention to return to the land embedded in daily prayers and so forth).

You often point to the U.S. with understandable (and shared by me) pride. But it's worth pointing out that when Jews needed an escape hatch, the US was not there for them. It's worth pointing out that a few Jews have been lynched in the US. And it's also worth noting that very few countries hold, as central to their ethos, the welcoming of huddled masses. And even we have quotas. So it's not as if there are ton of places to go and be welcomed when your back is up against the wall.

(Elsewhere, syvanen has pointed derisively at the one token Arab minister in the government as proof of Arab second-class citizenship. But when the topic is Iran, another place where it is argued that Jews live the good life and are safe and equal, the one Jewish member of their government is used as proof that things are hunky dory for Iranian Jews. I don't want to overstate the case here either way--or claim that you are making this argument--but this discrepancy is odd. And Iranian Jews aren't even engaging in armed struggle against the regime.)

Now this may sound as if I'm saying the world owes Jews a living. It doesn't. And in fact, the Zionist idea embraces this reality and says, "Okay, we're going to go out and make our own living. We aren't going to sit passively and wait for the US or another country to take us in and protect us. We're going to create our own and be just like everyone else." I think that's admirable and understandable. At the very least, it's a reasonable idea. And I say this, believe it or not, as someone who is not and never has been particularly Zionistic in my outlook.

Now, having said all this, I do agree with you that Israel has to learn to live by the rules of the road, i.e., NPT and other matters. She has to see that she HAS achieved security. It isn't that easy because there clearly are folks who talk at least as if she shouldn't exist. I don't think Israel has ever said anything that could even be mistranslated to say that Iran should be wiped off the face of the earth. And I'm not aware of Israel threatening another country with its nuclear weapons--for a long time it didn't even admit to having them, let alone using them as a threat.

So bottom line, yes, fear is an important factor. Over time, once the fear is allowed to settle, I predict that Palestinians and Israelis will mingle and something like a single nation--at least culturally and economically--will emerge. I'm positive that will happen.

It's worth remembering that Jews, in general, are among the most cosmopolitan of peoples. It was largely the failure of the Enlightenment to deliver on its promise that prompted Herzl, an assimilated Jew, to become a Zionist. And so while we're accused of being separatist, we're also accused of being "rootless cosmopolitans," and also bolsheviks, and also international bankers, and bankers to slave traders, and fomenters of all wars, and, once upon a time, Christ killers. Oh and Zionists want to rule the world.

Have you ever seen one people accused of being so many different, and contradictory, things? So yes, there is fear. I think it's understandable. And I agree, it is at the root of Israel's reliance on its military.

It's also something Jews and Israelis need to overcome to move forward. I know I've rambled, but I hope I'm making some sense.

Indeed, that happened. It was wrong. Reparations have been paid. The 442nd Regimental Combat Team of Japanese-Americans, mostly from Hawaii, was the most decorated unit of its size in WWII.

Since then, there has been an American of Japanese ancestry as Chief of Staff of the US Army. A senator of Japanese ancestry received the Medal of Honor that he did not receive in a timely manner, due to discrimination that is being corrected as best we can.

When there is an IDF Chief of Staff, not a Jew, of Israeli Arab ancestry, let me know. Until then, I don't see the relevance of your examples, other than the usual tu quoque defense that Israel is being held to a higher standard. In this case, I don't ask Israel to have any higher standard than does the US.

It's ironic that if the Congress and Administration had listened to GEN Shinseki's recommendations, either the US would not be in Iraq, or would have gone in only if there was a multinational security and rebuilding force, of adequate size, behind the strike forces.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

MJ, while you have no chance to get a job in any future Democratic Administration, you are very good at repeating Palestinian talking points, including nonsence about historic Palestine.
Try to get a job as spokesman for Hamas. They can pay you well with Iranian money.

This will happen 50 years after Arabs's unconditional surrender, so give Israel some time.

Let me remind you that British mandate territory was divided in a Jewish state and an Arab state. For how long we are going to reargue this UN decision?

Yes, but Howard, isn't much of the argument about how the Palestinians deserve...dignity?

You could take everything you're saying here and apply it to the Palestinians, word for word.

And the Liiberman answer, is that The Arab Israelis can have their own state in North Galilea if they want.

I do push for open borders with Mexico. I've always been proud that this country has the longest unguarded borders in the world.

I'm also well aware that when governments start walling people out, it's only a step to walling people in.

This is unfair and untrue, Daniel. I don't agree with everything Rosenberg writes, but one thing I do know is that he has always been dedicated to the future of Israel and is dedicated to peace in the Middle East. Your accusations of anti-semitism and putting the responsiblity for the deaths of Israelis on his shoulders is one of the nastiest and coldest pieces of business I've ever seen anyone write on this board. That goes way beyond disagreement on political issues and is nothing but plain unadulterated cruelty and viciousness.

I urge you to delete it, you've crossed a line here.

Yes, but England and France are not requiring their Muslims to acknowledge the "white" or "Christian' roots of those secular societies. Unlike other Western nations, Israel is trying to enshrime its dominant religion/ethnic/cultural/tribal identity into law by requirnig it's recognition. A real democracy asks that its institutions, not its "identity" be recognized.

Who are you responding to? i never wrote any racists statements about religious and Russian Jews? Your normal "tu quoque" argument is now just "make-up-stuff que".

How do they use anti-Semitism to promote their arguments? Nowhere in their writings do they argue American foreign policy is controlled by a "secret Jewish cabal." Weak. Weak. Weak.

Actually they do.

The "gift" he was referring to was all those cluster bombs Israel dropped on Lebanon last year. And the ungrateful Lebanese didn't even say "thank you".....

Ses MJ you are totally unable to argue with somebody on the merits. You are unable to to comprehend why would anybody disagree with you. The only explanation you have for a people who disagree with you that they are nuts. Actually in USSR they put people who had different opinions in mental institutions. So you are not original "thinker". Thanks G-D you have and will never have power to put people with whom you disagree into mental institutions.

"Thanks G-D you have and will never have power to put people with whom you disagree into mental institutions."

Yes, you should thank God for that.

Correct, If Arabs insist on the "right of return" no peace is posasible.

Yes I do, I am thankful every day that I live in a great free country where people like you no longer have any power. We all think that Bush limited rights and freedom of Americans. Just immagine what would happen if people like MJ
come to power.
BTW, I predict that you would remove this tread,
Today, You are specially foolish.

But when the topic is Iran, another place where it is argued that Jews live the good life and are safe and equal, the one Jewish member of their government is used as proof that things are hunky dory for Iranian Jews.

Don't even imply that I ever said any such thing. I have nothing but contempt for the Iranian treatment of their minorities. I do not spend time denouncing them for the simple reason there is nothing that I or we can do about it short of going to war and conquering the Persian people. Israel is different. My tax dollars bankroll that country. Our military fights their wars. That makes me complicit in Israel's behavior.

Peter - This was an interesting attempt to explain the psychology of Israelis - obviously a difficult proposition. I want to ponder this issue a bit before I respond but I appreciate, and I hope others do too, your efforts.

The actions of Israeli Jews makes a lot of sense to me even when I disagree with a lot of it. Your little exposition made me stop and think - why is that so. Hopefully, more later.

Daniel, you are surely entitled to your opinion, however, I can't help but think that all the historic battles that Jews have fought against anti-semitism are being trivialized by you and others of your ilk who act more like schoolyard tattletales, crying to the yard monitor that the other kids are picking on you (Podhoretz Syndrome, anyone?)

Just because someone once wrote a book about a secret Jewish conspiracy cabal does not preclude anything in the future.

Also, it doesn't seem to be very secret--Pollard, Franklin, Rosen, Weissman, etc.

I think the only anti-semetism in this statement would be if I were to condemn all Jews for the actions of these traitors. Luckily, I know from personal experience and from this forum that most Jews don't share your tubular view of the world.

Such a policy, if issued by previous admininistrations, was wrong. In the case of GWB, however, he has demonstrated a striking unwillingness to be bound by any external constraint, mere treaties being lost in the noise. Other Presidents, I suspect, had a better understanding when they were making rhetorical gestures and when they were actually committing the United States.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Del

The US does not necessarily need to share the R&D of all weapons. I can name a long list of weapons systems that had no foreign sales whatsoever, or perhaps, only to Britain.

Further, Israel appears to have stopped its joint development of some quite strategic projects, such as Nautilus (previously called MTHEL). While I cannot be certain, my impression is that the IDF is far more focused on offensive than defensive weapons such as Nautilus and Skyguard.

You may say "our military doesn't fight their wars," but when Bush commits the US to preserve the existence of a Jewish state, he certainly has not precluded it.

There are some areas of information or technology that would be stabilizing or otherwise of mutual benefit. For example, if Israel does not now receive a real-time feed from staring infrared satellites that detect the heat of a rocket launch, they should be getting them, both for warning and for even faster time in cueing counterartillery fires onto the launcher. One problem of the AN/TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37 counterbattery radars, as opposed to the LCMR, is that the former two are not omnidirectional, and need to be cued to search in the direction of a potential launch. At present, the US is trying to integrate a British acoustic detection system for that purpose.

Of course, Davai, I'm sure you are intimately familiar of how a modern military arranges its defenses against hostile artillery rockets, and on the ongoing R&D to improve those defenses. If anyone believes that, do remember to watch me play in the NFL All-Pro game.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Talk about false alternatives: either you are on the team or you are indifferent to murder. May I suggest you get a little bit of perspective.

Do Iranians Jews go through checkpoints? Are they subject to "targeted killings"? I would rather be a Jew in Iran than a Palestinian under Israeli Occupation.

Because neither side can envision the legitimacy of the other. Just look at this blog for proof of that.

Are American Jews a legitimate nationality? Or do you mean Israelis are a legitimate nationality? Certainly the latter are.

The whole point of Zionism was for Jews to have a state and to define it as they see fit.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I agree with your point.

I am utterly opposed to Israel trying to define Jewish identity for Jews that don't want to be part of Israel's political process.

Lally, I'm far from even amateur knowledge on military matters, but I think a better analogy might be our use of a favorite tactic in Iraq. If a MAM “suspect” was not at home, we would drag his wife off to prison with mumbled threats of torture and wait for him to turn himself in. I understand it’s very effective. We may have ended this practice but the Pentagon defended it initially. It is my understanding that this is a war crime and any kind of collective punishment is illegal.

"Tit for tat" is right. The thing about killing Hamas members in retaliation for rocket fire is that it isn’t Hamas firing the rockets. Islamic Jihad is a radical terrorist group often conflated with Hamas. Hamas has been able to convince them to halt attacks before but after the Fatah incursion and Israeli clampdown on Gaza they would not listen to Hamas (though they have offered to stop if Israel would stop). Hamas and PIJ have had many clashes but to no effect.

The Hamas militia has been fighting IDF incursions more as a regular army (and lobbing mortars occasionally at military targets). Any where else on Earth they would be seen as a legitimate security force defending its territory from invasion. The Hamas militia are not angels but neither are the IDF in what it is doing. Anyway, I don’t think it matters much because Israel has killed or incarcerated non-militia Hamas leaders all along with no real excuses whatsoever (Hey, they’er terrists). The U.N occasionally squawks in the silence.

Who is trying to do this?

I think

you oppose to your immagination

"In Soviet Russia, forum post you!"

Did you actually read their articles? What a weak statement. How does the Jewish lobby get its power? The answer, the large number of Jews who vote and give money to candidates and especially Democratic candidates. This isn't about AIPAC or Evangelicals but about American Jews. There is also a constant suggest in their work that American Jews but the insterests of Israel ahead of that of the United States. In the case of the neo-Cons their views are assumed not proved.

This is classical anti-Semitism. Something is weak but not the truth.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

They were only were prevented from smuggling advance weapons from Iran and Syria to use it to attack Israel.
So, let's them stop fighting Israel from Gaza, the fight they can't win, and start building a state there because "Zionists are removed from their daily lives" in Gaza.

You observe, correctly, that there are many threads here. My concerns went up astronomically after the recent Lebanese operation.

A professional military is characterized by the controlled application of force, coupled with thinking ahead about what the likely threats may be and how to respond to them. Again, IDF censorship is one of its own worst enemies. There may have been some non-obvious reasons for doing certain things they did, but, given that they don't share their thinking, I can only draw inferences on how, especially, the US-designed weapons and sensors are intended to be used. I can only draw inferences about the way they seemed terribly surprised by tactics that, for example, have been used by the Chechens since 1999, if not earlier.

I have the sense of a young giant, alternate throwing tantrums of immense force, and then overreacting to what are actually minor threats. I see, in a variety of indicators, a flavor of the World War One French Jeune ecole, totally focused on offense and attack.

Today's IDF, and whatever civilian control exists over it, truly scare me as unpredictable and prone to overreaction.

I'm going to reverse the order of two of your sentences; I think you'll see why.

And I'm not aware of Israel threatening anothe country with its nuclear weapons

--for a long time it didn't even admit to having them, let alone using them as a threat.

I don't think Israel has ever said anything that could even be mistranslated to say that Iran should be wiped off the face of the earth.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Howard,

I am not going to 'dignify' your post with a reply! :-)

Oh, I do make a big deal about US-trained Fatah gangs murdering other Palestinians. Do you want have that discussion. I'm more than happy to have it.

While I oppose Hamas--and all religious parties for that matter--I don't think Abbas has the legitimacy to dismiss a popularly elected Parliament. The fact that the West supported him in doing so show how phony the democracy push in the Arab world really is.

I think it's because he has a man-crush on you like George Costanza had on one of Elaine's boyfriends. You are the open-minded progressive he always yearned to be.

They would if they only could.

Daniel, we've always been respectful of each other, but frankly, I think you crossed the line with blaming him if Israelis get killed. There are some things in this world, that even if you think it, you don't say it, it is just a really cruel thing to say.

I'm sorry that you feel like posters have been piling it on, and I know it's difficult to be besieged by an onslaught of people disagreeing with you and I empathize with you, but I do think this was too much.

I agree that there does seem to be relentless negativity towards Israel and I imagine it is overwhelming, I apologize for that - it must make you feel pretty damned bad.

Deleted

Absolutely not. Although I do support every nation in the ME being free of nuclear weapons.

And there is no existential threat without the occupation. You do know that the occupation is an international crime, don't you?

I am speaking to your strategy of saying that anybody who dares to speak of an organized conspiracy by some people of Jewish persuasion is automatically channelling some discredited old anti-Jewish propaganda, and is thus automatically discredited.

I wonder why you choose to bring up Jews accused of spying? What relevance is that?

Because they point to coordinated activities by *some* people of Jewish persuasion to spy on the United States. And you also would like to ignore that three of those names were part of your beloved AIPAC. Conspiracy or not, these people were, or will be, convicted of spying against the US--for Israel.

What does that sound like to you?

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

Exact same reason the ANC didn't want to acknowledge the white character of South Africa.
Really.

Maybe not. I'm not optimistic. And reading these posts makes me less so.

THe bottom line is if Arabs don't accept a partition of British Mandate into Jewish and Arab states, there is not going to any peace.

I wonder if there might be some legitimate confusion here from Davai's earlier country. There's only one nationality in the US: American. Soviet passports, however, did mark internal passports with "nationality", and one was indeed "Jew". Soviet political theorists, and, in partial response, the US intelligence community, would keep talking in terms of the "nationalities problem".

In the US, there's been constant resistance to the idea of having identity papers, where a policeman could wander up and demand them. There are a fair number of interactions both with business and government where such are demanded, and there is also the balancing factor that having strong ID helps with identity theft.

But, if such papers, in a given country, start being marked with "nationality" or equivalent, there is a problem. While South Africa was under apartheid, the "Pass Laws" were some of the most hated.

Israel may, for legitimate security reason, have occasion where the police can ask for identification. If, however, those papers show any distinction among Israeli citizens, there will be a problem. A big problem.

An even bigger problem comes if Palestine actually gets aggressive about internal security. Would papers be stamped "Hamas" or "Shiite", rather than Palestinian? Right now, it's hard to speak of a Palestinian identity when the areas are so fragmented, and having internal as well as external combat.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I'm not so sure about B'nai Brith, or other social organizations in the US. I have known absurdities of people bombarded with "Jewish" appeals based on surname, and devout Jews get strange looks when signing in, at a religious function, because they didn't have "Jewish" names.

Fine. I won't take it personally if you consider it arrogant; please don't take it personally if I consider Israel arrogant for claiming it is the "Jewish state" rather than, with no derogatory implications, the "Zionist state". The latter is a geopolitical reality, as you mention in the reference to "socialist Zionism".

Hitler and Stalin seemed to believe that the Jewish nation was a distinct and dynamic nation in its own right. The latter wasn't quite as dramatic in his response as the former.

Zionism is a real thing. Jewish religion is a real thing. Jewish cultural achievements are a real thing, although I don't see them as defining a people any more than jazz does. If there is a Jewish people, Israel does not represent it by any concept of governance theory I know.

I don't know who Reb Ovadia is or was, and frankly, don't care. There is a continuing effort, which I strongly support, of doing away with the reporting of "race" in medical journals, although it is absolutely appropriate to discuss genotypes. If you were to say that one of the high incidence populations for Tay-Sachs disease is the subset of Jews identified as Ashkenazim, I would have no objection.

As far as I am concerned, there is one race and one people: human. There are people from all cultures, geographic areas, and linguistic groups who have contributed to humanity, and there have been monsters from all cultures, geographic areas, and linguistic groups.

Knock yourself out defining a $FOO people, but I am not playing. If you want to speak of genotypes, linguistic groups, or any of a number of objective classes, I am perfectly willing to do so. It is a practical reality that most people in the world have a national citizenship.

I respect fully the decision of a person to swear allegiance and be an Israeli, just as I respect the right of a person to be an American. Again, there is a specific, observable characteristic. I see a very limited need for dual citizenship, although I believe international law should require one to declare single citizenship, perhaps at the age of majority or shortly thereafter.

If you have a punishment for me, just let me know, and know who will enforce it for me. Until then, I recognize the religion of Judaism, and a set of cultural achievements that were created by Jews. Those achievements are no more restricted to the Jewish people than jazz is restricted to African-Americans of a certain time and place.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

If Israel wants to assert the UN partition of Palestine as the legal standard, then you must accept its boundaries. All occupied and settled land outside the partition must be returned, which would involve a large transfer of the Jewish population. Here is a map of the partition (Note: Jerusalem is an international city within Palestine). Perhaps, if Israel is willing to abide by the original partition, there can be peace.

Israel accepted the UN partition, however, Arabs didn't, and started and lost several wars.
There are the consequences for losing wars.
Germans lost WW1, lost some lands, try to win their lands back and lost even more lands and had to absorb millions of refugies. Maybe it's unfair, but life is not fair. If Israel lost a single war, it would not lose something, it would lose everything.

I wondered why Israelis call Palestinians Arabs. I guess it’s because it is only the Arab world who can really threaten Israel. The Palestinians didn’t wage and lose any wars against Israel because the Palestinians didn’t even have a military.

The Arab League, made up of other Arab countries, fought Israel. You can’t even say that they fought on the Palestinians’ behalf since many of those countries like Jordan and Egypt had their own designs on Palestinian land.

If Israel accepted the UN partition then they accepted those borders. There is also the fact that it is a crime to confiscate occupied land. You’re not really going to use Nazi Germany as a shining precedent for why Israel should retain invaded territory, are you? Life is not always fair, but I don’t think there will be peace without a somewhat just solution and Israel will never be secure. Not fair indeed.

Thank you. Let me make it clear that I haven't the slightest complaint that there are distinct and valued Jewish cultural contributions, although I might argue that I do find it something of a mental stretch to consider one culture encompassing the Rambam and Mel Brooks. That's actually less of a stretch if I look at "cultures" as being discrete periods along a timeline, in the sense that classical music has gone through periods. I'm not enough of a musical historian or theorist to give a proper definition of recent classical compositions that aren't in the Baroque or Romantic traditions, although I'm sure some compositions today are still written in that style. [Expert musical commentary, which I know lurks here, appreciated. With music, it's more "I know what I like", although I can be more formal in, say, periods of photographic art.]

If for no other reason than culture is discontiguous, I find it hard to think of culture defining a "people". Now, if someone wants to describe a cohort of people with some common genotype, that is a meaningful distinction. Language has been mentioned, but, in the example of Hebrew, the orthography (with variation) may be a reasonably common thread among Ladino and Yiddish and Classical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew, but I'm not sure orthography is enough. Persians and Arabs might object to such a theory.

I like to think of moving to a world where there can be a flourishing of cultures, but that they don't promote conflict. No, I am not saying we are remotely ready for world government.

It was sometime in the early seventies when my workplace had a mandatory "diversity" seminar, with a Professional Diversity Facilitator (TM). It had been made clear that our bosses were OK with our challenging assumptions, and my team was one of the brightest and creative groups I've known. The overall seminar stays in my memory much like a first draft of a Mel Brooks script, but I remember moments like being challenged about not appreciating "Asian" (no other specification) culture. When I inquired which Asian culture she had in mind, I received a lengthy non-answer, even less coherent than Davai on a bad day, so I reached into my limited grab-bag of languages and had the satisfaction of getting blank looks when I insulted her in Japanese and Vietnamese. Following a hunch, I began waving my arms and saying strident things to which she didn't know how to respond. You see, our offices were in the DC Chinatown area, and it seems traditional among programmers to try to learn at least how to order in a couple of dialects. My colleagues knew that the insults were variously Cantonese, Mandarin, and Szechuan menu items, but the facilitator did not.

I'm not trying to boast here, but make an observation that cultures can be celebrated without creating boundaries of political distrust.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

ah yes, South Afrika and Israel--old friends and nuke buddies, who shared a similar 'indigenous problem.'

JohnW1141,

In his Government post, does Raleb Majadele represent Palestinians or Israel?

Raleb Majdele is the Israeli Minister of Science.  So, what kind of question is this -- ignorant, cynical, sarcastic, or just stupid?

mythbuster,

Are American Jews a legitimate nationality? Or do you mean Israelis are a legitimate nationality? Certainly the latter are.

I mean Jews.  Do you require Arab people to reject their heritage if they live in London, Amsterdam or Dearborn, MI?  And when some do seek assimilation, should it somehow diminish the Arab character of Syria, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.?

Don Key,

I wondered why Israelis call Palestinians Arabs....

Because Palestinians consider themselves Arab and the Arab estbalishment has concurred.  The PLO Charter declares,

Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation (Article I)

And the Arab League bestows membership upon Palestine. 

This is a new and intrigueing area of this overall debate for me -- where the Israelis are now seen as calculating nefariously by acknowledging and recognizing the Palestinians' own national character, while the Arabs and Palestinians are accepted as enlightened progressives for rejecting the national identity of the Jews.

If Israel accepted the UN partition then they accepted those borders.

But at the time Israel had accepted the UN partition, the Palstinians and the Arab establishment rejected it and launched a war to overturn it.  History does not happen all at once, and it still matters where you insert your narrative.

Thank you for finally making your menu unambiguous. Every time I read "turkey and corn casserole", I visualize a giant platter of an entire chopped turkey mixed with a bushel of corn. It might have been interesting, but I didn't think that was what you had in mind. ;-)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

This is a new and intrigueing area of this overall debate for me -- where the Israelis are now seen as calculating nefariously by acknowledging and recognizing the Palestinians' own national character, while the Arabs and Palestinians are accepted as enlightened progressives for rejecting the national identity of the Jews.

It’s new to me, too, as I never made that argument.

But at the time Israel had accepted the UN partition, the Palstinians and the Arab establishment rejected it and launched a war to overturn it.

Now that’s what I was arguing against. The Palestinians did reject the division of Palestine into ethnic territories. But they did not launch a war against the Zionists. In fact, in some places the Palestinian villagers fought against the Arabs.

Say, Egypt threatens Israel, then Israel must retaliate by occupying more of Palestine. See, in defense against the "Arabs" after the partition, the Zionists had to take another 25% of Palestine. They’re all Arabs after all.

Of course, Palestinians are Arabs. But they were not trying to create an exclusive Arab state out of a Jewish land. The Zionists were and are trying to extend dominion over a Greater Israel that is exclusively Jewish and one way the hardliners justify their aggression is to conflate and dehumanize all Arabs.

Even if the Palestinians had started the war, would it really have been so bad?

They don't have to defeat Israel militarily--and Olmert know it. Like Black South Africans, without a two-state solution, the momentum will build for turning Israel into a pariah state like Apartheid South Africa. It will take about 20 years, and will gain much momentum as American influence in the ME recedes, which, frankly, is inevitable.

Sure, if they want to suffer, it's their choice.
While Jews kept the hope "next year in Jerusalem" alive, they tried to live their lives the best way they could.

True, however, Zionists are removed from their daily lives.

Are you insinuating a Minister of Science represents Palestinians?

Does this person represent only the Science connected to Palestinians?

or

is the Minister of Science's job in Israel
to represent Palestinians in the Knesset?

When syvanen posted that "Arabs can vote but their representatives are barred from serving in government", from the tenor of the post and using the word "vote" I took it to mean he/she meant to refer to Representatives in the Knesset, not as someone in the Cabinet, who would be a symbol for the Palestinians, but a representative of Israel.

I see syvanen using 'represent' as a verb not a noun.

If Joe Lieberman was successful and got himself elected to the Office of Vice President would he represent Americans or Jews? As a Senator, does he represent Connecticut or Jews?

And to answer your question; neither.

Purple,

Your question may be rhetorical and Davai has already answered or at least illustrated why I made the distinction. Resistance by Palestinians to having their state taken over has always been an excuse to continue doing just that. It still is (under the guise of "security").

But Israel has always argued that Palestine wasn't a state, while at the same time, hanging the invasion by the Arab League around the necks of the Palestinians, which makes it a war between states. This somehow makes it acceptable that the victor retains land won in this war between nations (as opposed to the ethnic cleansing that it was).

As I said, if they're all one Arab entity, when Egypt threatens, Israel can just invade and occupy Palestinian territory in response. It makes no sense. Some Polish Jews resisted against the Germans. Does that make the Germans' actions against the Jewish community there more acceptable?

I'm not sure what does it mean "acceptable".
Yes, If they decided to subject them the same treatment as Israel subjected Arabs in Palestine, I would be very happy.
In any case, Chech Germans were kicked out of CHechoslovakia after WW2 as well Germans were kicked out of East Prussia. I'm not sure if it was acceptable, but it was accepted by everybody and everybody moved on.

Thanks for your reply--it's pretty much what I suspected, and although it's not a really fair comparison, I suppose that asking you about Berg is somewhat similar to asking Christians about Hagee. I am impressed with your diplomatic answer!

"They are lucky to lose to Jews."

Ah yes, we goyim forget sometimes how special you Jews are. Thanks for the reminder.But maybe the Palestinians would prefer to be robbed the regular way--at knifepoint--rather than through some special deal the Jews are offering?

I don't take Buchanan's opinion very seriously on this issue (or many others, truth be told).  That Pat Buchanan cites Israel in support of his asinine argument only illustrates to me what a cynical bastard he always was and will ever be.  Similarly, I recall the cynically subtle genius of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan, maybe ten or more years ago.  Not everyone knows that Minister Farrakhan plays violin.  In what Minister Farrakhan sold to the media as "outreach" to the Jewish community, he performed a concert recital of Mendelsohn.  It is hardly common knowledge that Mendelsohn rejected Judaism and the Jewish community and converted to some flavor of Christianity, but Minister Farrakhan and most Jews who have an appreciation of their history knew it.  And as many leaders in the Jewish community publicly and predictably rejected Farrakhan's gesture and openly questioned its sincerity, Farrakhan played it as yet more proof of the unreasonably hateful nature of those stiff-necked Hebrews.

Zionista.

"That Pat Buchanan cites Israel in support of his asinine argument only illustrates to me what a cynical bastard he always was and will ever be."

After HUH?....... and......WTF?

....this was also my take on Buchanan's use of his "Israel model" to promote his racist agenda for America. He gets lots of face time on MSNBC and it will be interesting to see if the publication of his new book provides an opportunity for him to expand upon it there and/or in other venues.