Bob

The impression over here (and over there, too) is that Obama certainly didn't coordinate with Netanyahu his speech. The impression I've seen is that Obama "preempted" Netanyahu's departure from Israel, so that Netanyahu was informed of Obama's speech just as he was embarking on his trip to the USA. I doubt Netanyahu was too surprised, as Obama had articulated a similar position in earlier speeches. Anyways, clearly there's a rift between the perceptions of Obama and Netnayahu. I think Obama's perception of this conflict, and the broader region, is deeply flawed.

It's hard for me to believe. The intentional destruction of property is in itself so contrary to values of all ultra-orthodox people I've ever met, let alone violence (or intended murder?!) or another Jewish person. I'll reserve judgment 'til I see more. But if this story is what the allegations claim it to be, well, I'll be speechless. Violence is so contrary to ultra-orthodox. The closest they go is advocating for the IDF to do its job (although they stay out of the IDF!). Craziness.

Various components of the early Zionist movement gave serious thought to how to deal with the Arab population in the decades leading up to May of 1948. And of course, a lot of the early Zionist movement was composed of idealistic and ideological socialists who entertained ideas of a binational state. This is all part of addressing the question - how do we balance the need for a Jewish state with democracy? Because of course, if Israel was indeed a Jewish state, wouldn't that mean revoking the political freedoms of the non-Jewish population? Clearly, Israel is somewhere in middle on this issue - trying to balance the need for the Jewish character of the state on the one hand with democratic values on the other. It's part of the balancing act that makes this country such a messed up case study. If Israel really went puritanical and prioritized the Jewish component of its declaration of independence, in the Kahanist sense, non-Jews would not be permitted to participate in this democracy. I'd say you're quite off the mark in describing Israel as a religiously Jewish state. There's a joke in Israel, and it says that you're only Jewish twice in this country - when you get married (because marriage is administered by the various religious authorities in Israel) and when you die (because cemeteries are often administered by orthodox religious organizations). So in Israel, a Jew and a non-Jew will find it impossible to marry. What this couple could do, however, is go outside of Israel, get married, and then Israel will recognize the marriage. Since Israel recognizes foreign marriages (including gay marriages), this is the loophole around the religiously administered service/institution of marriage. With respect to funerals, many Jews with questionable Jewish origin will have difficulty (and by that I mean it's almost impossible) being buried in a conventional Jewish cemetery. This is of course because cemeteries, like marriages, are generally administered by religious authorities. Unlike marriage, however, there are secular cemeteries and funeral options in this country. It's messed up, but it's part of what makes this country so crazy. Aside from that, you won't find much religious imposition on your day-to-day life. For some reason all men (Jewish and non-Jewish alike!) are expected to wear a kippah when near the Western Wall plaza (which makes no sense whatsoever from a religious perspective). Women and men are separated at the Western Wall plaza, as well. This is "law", as this area is administered by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. It's quite a small intrusion, but it's too bad that women can't go into this alcove inside the wall with all the Torah scrolls and other cool stuff. Ah well. You're right, though, Israel isn't really a "true" democracy, in the sense that Israel wouldn't allow itself to lose its Jewish status as a function of democracy. I gave this hypothetical awhile back, but in the event that the Jewish proportion of the population began to diminish, there'd have to be some intervention by the state at the expense of democracy. It's not happening and is unlikely to happen, as Jewish birthrates are high enough, but if it did begin to happen.... democracy would have to be compromised, at least somewhat, in order to preserve the Jewish character of the country. Basically, "Jewish and democratic" statehood essentially puts Israel into a potentially schizophrenic position. Religious authorities are not entrusted with determining who is eligible to make Aliyah under the Law of Return. The Law of Return mimics the Nazi Nuremberg laws, so if it you are "Jewish enough" to have been sent to a camp during the Holocaust, you're "Jewish enough" to be "saved" by Israel. If the religious authorities were to determine the Law of Return, it'd mirror Halaha (Jewish orthodox law). And yes, Israel has absorbed many "fake Jews" who lied about their Jewish identity in order to come here for one reason or another. Many of them came from Russian and former Soviet republics, as well as a small amount of Ethiopia. Of course they've come from everywhere, but I think these are the two biggest suppliers of "fake Jews".

I think some of the Israeli establishment not-so-secretly wants for Gazans to really feel the squeeze and suffer some hard times. I think that some of the Israeli establishment actually believes (naively) that this "stick" (as opposed to some type of carrot) approach might alter mainstream Gazan support for Hamas. In other words, if they suffer as a result of electing and supporting Hamas, perhaps they'll choose differently next time? The only real alternative to Hamas, in Gaza, is Fatah. There is no other well-organized organization with any serious amount of support in Gaza as far as I know. The main difference between Hamas and Fatah is religiosity. Hamas is much more Islamic, but the rhetoric regarding Israel is quite similar. Yes, of course Hamas is more consistently aggressive and makes more far-reaching demands, but Hamas and Fatah are essentially similar in many ways, in my view.

Aside from the absurdities of the political commentary in the OP masquerading as objective analysis, I'll give my impression of the recent development with the opening of the Rafiah Crossing on the Gaza-Egypt border (since I'm sure you're all just dying to know what I think /sarcasm). The bad news? This is yet another tiny avenue through which terrorists can exit Gaza and enter Israel, or attack Jewish or other (i.e. American) interests abroad. In my paranoid mind, there is no question that terrorists have already exited Gaza for operations. Weapons smuggling? I'm not so worried about it. What kind of weapons can you really smuggle through a border crossing? All the real weapons enter Gaza through underground tunnels and, to a lesser extent, undetected naval vessels to Gaza's Mediterranean border. They've already got a steady supply of weapons, this crossing which is only suffient for the movement of people isn't anything Israel needs to worry about with respect to weapons smuggling. As cool as the "peace" is between Egypt and Israel, I don't see Egyptian border guards being so reckless as to allow some meaningful amount of weapons to get into or out of Gaza. The good news? As some editorialists have already opined, perhaps this is the first of several steps through which Israel can transfer responsiblity (both real and perceived) for Gaza to Egypt. Israel provides (although it is paid for these services) electricity, water, and waste services to Gaza. Israel also facilitates aid to Gaza through certain border crossings (currently I think only through the Erez crossing). As a half-joke, if anyone wants to go back to the lines as they were before June of 1967, does that mean Egypt will reoccupy Gaza and carry that burden on its own? In short, perhaps these recent developments can be part of a greater shift towards finalizing the divorce between Israel and Gaza.

I pretty much stopped reading your post after the very first sentence. This is such obvious political drivel based on false innuendos and suppositions. If you really want to learn something about Israel, stick around. As far as the opening question - can a Jewish state be democratic? This is indeed a challenging question. Aside from the philosophy of it, we can examine how Zionism and Israel has dealt with this issue even in the decades before Israel's reestablishment in May of 1948.

Nope. More obligations? Yes. More right and freedoms? No. We've gone over this...

Post to the Left is just another Wikipedia expert who follows the links to portray Israel as being born in sin and the Israelis and Jews as war mongering racist conquerors. Go read some books, rather than politicized Wikipedia entries that are more often than not written in a politicized/biased manner. You can't just throw a link to the King David Hotel bombing of 1946 and run away from the context. Yes, for an ignorant person, reading about that event in isolation of the context in which it took place might make some of the early pre-Israel Zionist movements look bad. But there's more to it than that.

I've never said such stupidity. And "illegal settlements" aren't built on land where Palestinians reside. Over 90% of the settlements and the settlers live in settlement blocks adjacent to the Green Line, on about 5% of West Bank Land, near Jerusalem. This image of Palestinians being "driven out" to make way for settlers is pure fantasy. Putting quotations around the security wall/fence displays, for about the thousandth time, that you really have no appreciation of Israeli security concerns. We must have imagined the thousands of casualties, victims of war and terror. The statistics suggest that the security wall/fence has indeed been effective. The security wall/fence could not be built exactly along the 1967 lines, anyways. They were impractical. So yes, some "Palestinian land" is on the western side of the security wall/fence. It's a fair price to pay to save lives. I support a two state solution that's workable, as long as it is in our best interests. They have no right to state at our expense that will threaten our existence.

It's quite simple what it means, Harper rejects the idea of the 1967 lines being the starting point for negotiations. He rejects the Holy Grail of these lines, they are not the acceptable points of reference for Israel. Harper has stated in the past he supports Palestinian statehood, and now he has elaborated, or made more specific, his perspective. Sometimes I think this is overstated. I mean, here we are, in Israel, in a Jewish state, regardless of the "rejection" from the Arabs. Granted, their rejection of our right to statehood in this land as Jewish people is the foundation of this conflict, but I think negotiations could be made and a final status agreement could be achieved even without this symbolic recognition. After all, even if the Palestinian leadership uttered the words of recognition, would you really believe them? You know in their heart of hearts they view the entirety of this land as their own. Right. Since your opinion is what defines "peace". I guess rejecting the left's positions is now being "opposed to peace". Yes, we don't accept your definition of "peace". I guess we're in the anti-peace camps! Isn't meaningless rhetoric lovely?

Is it really that bad? I've never had it. WIP reveals his own prejudices with that statement. WIP seems to be one of those folks who views Republicans and conservatives as racist until proven otherwise, while completely oblivious to his own racism. One a side note, but still regarding Herman Cain, here's a video of him appearing to be prejudices against Muslims. Take about generalization...

If you really think that then you don't understand Israeli or Jewish sentiment. I think the Palestinians are paying the price for their track record of violence. They simply cannot be trusted with full sovereignty at this time, hence Netanyahu's demand for demilitarization of a future Palestinian state, as well as a military presence along the Jordan River. Israel has legitimate security concerns regarding a future Palestinian state, and the military and civilian cemeteries filled with young people in Israel who have been victimized by war and terror should be proof enough. Has the Palestinians adhered to a non-violent policy since 1967, things would've been different. Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, enough of them maintained the same violent approach that they've held since the late 20th century, this leads to them not being worthy of trust with full sovereignty, and it is exactly why the West Bank is occupied. Moonlight Graham is half right, but he holds the flawed perspective that Israel WANTS to seize land across the 1967 Lines just for the hell of it. The supposition is clear: Israel is an aggressive country that seeks to seize as much land as possible, so how can we stop it? If that was true, then what was behind the Arab invasion of 1948 to destroy Israel? Or 1956? or 1967? Moonlight Graham doesn't seem willing or able to accept that there is widespread opposition among Palestinians to Israel as whole. Their grievance isn't with Israel's borders, it is with Israel itself. This is why they "mourn" Israel's anniversary of independence. They view this land as entirely their own, and are unwilling to accept a Jewish state. The reality Israel's detractors often avoid is that Israel in in the West Bank by necessity and not by choice.

It would appear that this disagreement between the USA and Israel was inevitable. Obama's have been making comments for quite awhile now suggesting that the settlement enterprise across the 1967 lines is one of the primary drivers of this conflict. This was a crucial strategic error for Obama, because if he would have had a better understanding of the conflict, he'd have known that certain settlement developments are essential and unstoppable. This is essentially true about the settlements in and around Jerusalem. They're an integral part of Jerusalem and of broader Israel. Obama acted tough, and Netanyahu (justifiably) rejected this demand. This makes Obama, and America, look weak. Obama damaged his credibility by staking out such a position. Perhaps just as importantly, Obama seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins and ongoing drivers of the conflict. This conflict started lone before June of 1967. The conflict over this land began in late 20th century, with the first large scale violence occurring in the 1920s with the "Arab riots" where they engaged in mass murder of Jews in the Palestine Mandate. What was their beef at that time? This is almost half a century before the first settler or settlement. People need to understand this falsehood of the settlement enterprise as some sort of provocation that justifiably incites the Arabs is dishonest and dangerous. The violence against the Jewish people in this land began long before 1967. That needs to be understood. Netanyahu was right to reject to 1967 lines as a basis for negotiations. The 1967 lines are indefensible. It's an unacceptable starting point for negotiations. This would be much easy for me to explain in person, or with a helicopter tour of the 1967 lines, as I'm sure people are wondering, "Why are this lines "indefensible"? Is that just Israeli rhetoric?" In the case of Jerusalem, the city is on the eastern edge of a corridor of the 1967 lines that pushes into the West Bank. Worse still, a large portion of Jerusalem is across the Green Line in three direction: North, East, and South. These lines are unworkable for Jerusalem. No city can naturally grow in some narrow corridor eastwards. There's also topography to be considered, as Jerusalem doesn't look like the Ottawa Valley, they're quite a bit of land that is very expensive to develop because of the hills. The 1967 lines are not some practical boundary that has long-term utility. Here's a cheesy couple video you folks may appreciate, it graphically outlines some of the security concerns associated with the 1967 lines. Unfortunately the entire premise of "land for peace" is flawed, at least if it is defined by subscription to the 1967 lines as some sort of Holy Grail. This has been the flawed American approach to the peace process for quite awhile, with many saying it began with the "Clinton Parameters", although in truth the 1967 lines are somewhat (there's some language open to interpretation) described as the point of departure for negotiations within Resolution 242. Despite these recent forceful statements, including Netanyahu's address to Congress that he's wrapping up right now, I am not optimistic about meaningful developments occurring in the short-term. The gaps between the two sides seem as wide as ever before, judging by the proclamations of both sides. Hopefully, if negotiations resume, Israeli and Palestinian leaderships will compromise on their public positions.

I think it's a setup, too. But of course I could be totally wrong. Time will tell.

Come on bloodyminded, seriously? You know there is a deeply-rooted and well-established Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. They were certainly involved in the demonstrations/events. To what degree? Who knows. I read the same terrible media you do and don't trust them to give me the full story. To what degree this movement is really secular is very up in the air. I hope it is, but chances are it isn't given the nature of Egyptian people. These aren't secular people, so they're not going to have a secular revolt. Yes, they're more secular than places like Saudi Arabia, but they're certainly not secular in the Western context.

I meant to say *MIScharacterization of the ultra-orthodox movement. There are legitimate beefs to be had with this community, but you're clearly here for sensationalist reasons. There's really no point in continuing this discussion, especially after the ludicrous reference to Jewish honour-killings. The ultra-religious community may be quirky, but one thing they are not is violent in the way you're trying to suggest. I think it's quite clear that you're trying to compare the ultra-orthodox Jewish community to the Islamists. You'd have a point if the ultra-orthodox Jewish community was beheading perceived opponents en masse, calling for stoning and other biblical death penalties to be implemented, calling for a religious Jewish state, flying planes into skyscrapers, etc... you get the point. Please stop your desperate attempt to demonize the ultra-religious Jewish community, your intentions are transparent. The second paragraph isn't worth responding to, it's just further hysterics based on false suppositions. It's funny how you're trying to dress up your attacks on the ultra-religious Jewish community as concern for Israel's long-term well-being. If anything, you want Israel to become another Islamist state where the Jewish people are subjugated. No thanks.

Agh. I am losing my patience with you. That is a characterization of the ultra-religious movement. Even is that story is true about the adjusted photograph of the female MKs, so what? For all the problems with the ultra-orthodox community in Israel, them being opposed to women's voting rights is not one of them. That's an absolute lie. There are real problems that can be discussed for women in ultra-religious circles among Jews (primarily marriage and familial pressures), but you'd actually have to be familiar with them to begin, and not on some agenda to smear Israel as some ultra-religious nation-state. In many ways, I assure you, Israel is much more laid-back than both Canada and America. Stop speaking about Israeli birthrate as if you've actually looked at them. It's lovely how the only acceptable demographic to you is the "atheist/agnostic" one. I'm still waiting for you to make a post about Arab birthrates in Israel and in the territories. Considering their high level of religiosity, surely that's concerning to you?

Post to the Left is engaging in hysterics. This type of activity is unheard of. I am quite familiar with Hassidim (they're generally harmless), and this story shocked me. This is ONE newspaper from New York, and it isn't even compatible with their modesty requirements, as newspaper images of Hilary Clinton don't transgress any of their rules. Regardless of the stupidity of the act of erasing Hilary from the photo (I'm still shaking my head at that), this is hardly normal. In fact, I've never seen this kinda stupidity in a Jewish newspaper, ever. The crazy comments about the ultra-orthodox establishment encroaching on Israel are further hysteric from someone who doesn't know anything about Israel. If you want real stories about ultra-orthodox group trying to impose their will on others, read up on stories about their opposition to public buses running on Shabbat, or how in certain sections of Jerusalem there is a quasi-official segregation on public buses based on gender (which doesn't really bother me, as most people do it voluntarily, except for the slippery slope concept). This is a non-story It's ridiculous that you spun this story into "even a New York newspaper", when it was ONLY THE NEW YORK NEWSPAPER. Don't portray Israel as exporting something like Saudi Arabia exports Wahabi Islam (which isn't comparable to ultra-orthodox Judaism on many things, primarily advocacy for violent Jihad).

You're right, but I don't know what proportion of Israel and Palestinian water comes from desalination technology. It's also expensive, partly in terms of up-front costs (from what I've read), but primarily in terms of ongoing energy/maintenance demands. It's certainly the future, but as things stand now the majority of our water is coming from the limited freshwater sources in the area.

I hope you're wrong, but I think you're right. Unless Israel gets a bold leader who can LEAD the country instead of being a prisoner of constituents, we'll see ongoing posturing and avoidance of hot-button issues. This is also true on the Palestinian side, but I just don't really care about them. We can define the future on our own terms without them with strong leadership, generally speaking.

I disagree with jbg, I think you have no point whatsoever. It's great how you describe Israel as being "artificially" formed against "facts on the ground". What was natural about us being exterminated? What was natural about us being denied entrance to countries like Canada as we were trying to escape the Holocaust? What was natural about us being subjected to pogroms in Europe? What was natural about us being forbidden from entering certain professions or studying in certain universities or living in certain cities in Europe? What was natural about us being evicted from our homes during the Spanish Inquisition? What was natural about being forced to convert of be killed by Christians and Muslims? What was natural about being subjugated as Dhimmi living under Muslim oppression? Why don't you explain me how all of that was natural, and then I'll explain to you why it's natural for us to simply have had enough of this abuse and refuse to have our independence and self-defense attacked by people like yourself. Moreover, we were returning to our homeland. That's what people like you always look over, as if there's some sort of statute of limitations on a nation's claims to self-determination. Sorry guys, you lost your country a long time ago because you were ethnicaly cleansed from your homeland, now you must live as minorities among the rest of the world, divided, and subject to the mercy of the host societies in which you live. The fact remains that nobody will ever lift a finger to help us when we're attacked. We don't need another Holocaust to demonstrate this, it;s demonstrated every day as the world looks the other way or CONDEMNS US when we're threatened and attacked. In the words of another, I'd rather be hated and alive than dead and loved. I don't need to see Jewish blood spilled en masse on some sort of regular basis in order to refresh your sympathies. The bottom line is that you don't give a damn about the Jewish people, our rights, or our self-preservation and ongoing development. And you know what? That's totally fine. I don't expect you to care, why should you? At the very least, however, in order to maintain a basic level of morality, don't attack our national rights while advocating the rights of another. More importantly, people like you claim not to advocate for Palestinian nationalism. Indeed, people like you who wear the cloak of humanism pretend that you are opposed to all nationalisms. Perhaps you really mean it when you say it, but if what you desired actually came to pass, what would actually occur would be a Palestinian state and the destruction of Jewish independence, and certainly Jewish subjugation under Islamic law AT A MINIMUM. You can argue all the philosophical principles you want, which may sound beautiful and egalitarian in an abstract sense, but in the real world these nationalisms do exist, and they don't disappear simply because you're unaware of them. A binational state necessarily means subjugation of the Jewish people in Israel to Islamic law. Period. End of story. Your posts of outrage on this forum won't do a damn thing to change that. There are unintended consequences to your recommendations (which are completely unoriginal, I've been hearing them for at least fifteen years now) that you refuse to acknowledge. It's the typical position of a person that has no group affiliation. That's fine. You can proclaim to belong to the brotherhood of humanity for all I care. But don't tell us that we don't have a right to acknowledge our differences, to distinguish ourselves from other by retaining our heritage and culture, and to continually develop ourselves ON OUR OWN TERMS. Don't try to impose your anti-nation agenda on us by deriding things that are important to us.

Here is an interesting YouTube channel that I think many of you will appreciate. The channel is journeymanpictures. There are quite a few videos on this channel which seem to come from amateur/freelance photo-video journalists. I find it a left-leaning channel, but whatever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbI64UAam24&feature=relmfu

I'm no Islamic theologian, but I can see many places where religious values they adhere to bear at least a passing resemblance to Judaism, it's just that these values are usually coloured with a bit more aggression, lose some of their nuance and become more puritanical, and reinforce an ambition to dominate others. Simplistic analysis, I know, but that's how it often seems.

Thanks for the information. And yes, I read in more than one place that Jerusalem being the "third holiest site to Islam" (like I case?) is a recent political development. The concept doesn't have deep roots in Islam's history, but is a product of the fusion between Islam and politics (Islamism), in order to rally Muslims in opposition to Israel. It's all a big lie, but most Muslims subscribe to it. In other words, Jerusalem having hly status to Muslims is political tool to generate animosity towards Israel and the Jewish people. Quite an effective lie.

I know very well what pluralism is, and we have it in Israel. I wish you were right, but we don't trust pluralism to protect our interests. Pluralism means the world looking the other way while we get exterminated. Being an ultra-minority in this world, pluralistic values condemn us to subjugation and the mercy of majority host societies. We don't trust you to protect us when our enemies seek to destroy us. And we don't trust you for god reason, because we know you don't give a damn what happens to us. Whatever the majority society is in which we live. Makes me wonder how countries like Canada, the United States, England have managed to survive and prosper all the years with such diversity and difference between their populations. Do you really need me to list all the other countries where those values of pluralism don't thrive? Most importantly, the countries you listed have a civic nationalism, not a nationalism tied to religion and/or ethnicity. Those countries are exceptions in this world. They're also going to have a hard time surviving if they don't retain a strong sense of what defines them. It'd be interesting to see them destroyed if they did what you want Israel to do, which would be to integrate massive Islamist populations. Let's see what Canada looks like in the days after it imports more than 20 million Palestinians (proportionally), which is what you seem to be hoping that Israel will do for a "bi-national state". We're not dumb enough to do that, sorry to disappoint you. Your point? That's what I'm saying. There's a lot of artificial diversity among the Arabs. Sure, but the Jewish nation need land upon which to have a country, so we can actualize our national rights. Do you not understand that?