American (Canadian) - Israeli Special Relationship

[Bob]

the west bank and east jerusalem is not your land.

The West Bank is the subject of negotiations, and for all intents and purposes it's primarily Arab and under Arab control. As far as Jerusalem, Jerusalem is one city. Not more East and West. Check the calendar, it's 2010... the days of divided Jerusalem and us being cleansed from our homes in the Arab controlled areas are over. Also over are the days when Jews couldn't go to our holiest site. And those days are never coming back.

[bud]

The West Bank is the subject of negotiations, and for all intents and purposes it's primarily Arab and under Arab control. As far as Jerusalem, Jerusalem is one city. Not more East and West. Check the calendar, it's 2010... the days of divided Jerusalem and us being cleansed from our homes in the Arab controlled areas are over. Also over are the days when Jews couldn't go to our holiest site. And those days are never coming back.

nope. the west bank and east jerusalem are not your land, you hypocrite douchebag.

Edited February 1, 2011 by bud

[Bob]

Bud, your posts are about 1% true. I really can't waste anymore time with you. I've seen and read and heard all your arguments a thousand times, by persons much, much, more intelligent and knowledgeable than you. It's really tiring to constantly correct you on historical revisionism, anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist rhetoric, or blatant lies about current events.

Seriously, there's no point in anyone having a conversation with you. You're a rebel without a clue trying to fill some spiritual void in your life by taking on the anti-Zionist Arab cause online. You have no sense of identity of your own so you join in with those who you view as the underdog in order to give meaning to your life. Go buy a keffiyeh and picket outside the Israeli embassy during the next campaign in Gaza.

[Bob]

As far as the OP goes, the special relationship between Israel and the USA is multilayered and complex. We can analyze different components of the relationship.

At the practical level, given America's inability to extricate itself from its thirst for Middle Eastern oil, America needs a dependable ally through which it can exert its influence if necessary. American leadership should always be reasonably well-prepared for the worst-case scenario, which can include a Arab-regimes coming together to shut off American access to one of its economic dependencies. Moreover, the relationship between Israel and the USA isn't entirely materialistic/pragmatic, it's cultural and therefore more durable. If it was all about dollars and cents, it'd be fragile.

I don't want to get into it, now, but there's a cultural/spiritual connection between Israel and America that strengthens the bond. I'll give my take on it, later. We do have Americans on this board, though, who can perhaps elaborate on it in unique ways.

[Rue]

you hypocrite douchebag.

How does such name calling get your point across.

Knock it off. Discuss the issues or if you can't hold off the name calling with him just don't respond to him.

[Rue]

Bud, your posts are about 1% true. I really can't waste anymore time with you. I've seen and read and heard all your arguments a thousand times, by persons much, much, more intelligent and knowledgeable than you. It's really tiring to constantly correct you on historical revisionism, anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist rhetoric, or blatant lies about current events.

Seriously, there's no point in anyone having a conversation with you. You're a rebel without a clue trying to fill some spiritual void in your life by taking on the anti-Zionist Arab cause online. You have no sense of identity of your own so you join in with those who you view as the underdog in order to give meaning to your life. Go buy a keffiyeh and picket outside the Israeli embassy during the next campaign in Gaza.

Take a break from responding to him. Don't bother. At this point the 2 of you are just name calling each other with insults. Leave it. Let it go. Its not worth it.

[Bob]

How does such name calling get your point across.

Knock it off. Discuss the issues or if you can't hold off the name calling with him just don't respond to him.

Don't even worry about it, Rue.

[Rue]

Don't even worry about it, Rue.

Got it.

[bud]

Bud, your posts are about 1% true. I really can't waste anymore time with you. I've seen and read and heard all your arguments a thousand times, by persons much, much, more intelligent and knowledgeable than you. It's really tiring to constantly correct you on historical revisionism, anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist rhetoric, or blatant lies about current events.

i'm not the one sitting here saying that west bank and east jerusalem belongs to jews.

you're an extremist and a fanatic who has no respect for another person's moral and legal entitlement to the rights of their land, freedom and self-determination.

people like you is exactly what's wrong with the conflict. until you're able to come up with some documents to back-up your wild claims, you'll continue to be a hypocrite douchebag.

[bud]

How does such name calling get your point across.

he just happens to be a hypocrite douchebag.

hyp·o·crite

a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

douche bag

an unattractive or offensive person

by stating that the jews are entitled to self-determination and freedom, while shooting down criticism of and then excusing those who take that right away from the palestinian, he shows that he's a hypocrite. his constant self-patting and self-obsessed posts make him a douche bag.

Edited February 1, 2011 by bud

[Jonsa]

The "special relationship" started with the collective guilt over what happened to the jews in WW2.

It was further strengthened when the Arabs got really pissed with the US over their immediate recognition of Israel upon beating the snot outta the the collective arab armies (jordanians excepted) in the war of independence.

It was further strengthened in 56 when Nasser closed the Suez and the British, French and US "encouraged" Israel to beat the snot outta the Egyptians once again. Meanwhile, back at the ranch Nasser, licking his wounds cozied up to the Ruskies, further strenghtening the US ties. Etc. Etc. Etc.

couple the political machinations with the fact that evangelical americans NEED to have the jews in Israel. It says so in their book.

I certainly don't think that the relationship has much to do with the fact that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east. American foreign policy has always been concerned with their own self interests (economic, political, military), hence the litany of dictatorships it has and still does support. Listen to the talking heads of american media as they lament the support of Mubarak for the last 30 years.

And as for the side play about palestinians right to self determination. I beleive they have the right. Now if only they could get their collective heads outta their butts and started behaving like adults and focus on BUILDING for the future instead of wallowing in hatreds of the past, they might stand a chance of exercising that right. As it is right now, regardless of their rights, given their monotonouosly repeated vows to liberate all of historic palestine, their chances are about nil. There isn't a rational person in the world who would let somebody who has REPEATEDLY demonstrated their fanatic desire to kill them and their families to roam free in the next yard over.

[bush_cheney2004]

...It was further strengthened in 56 when Nasser closed the Suez and the British, French and US "encouraged" Israel to beat the snot outta the Egyptians once again. Meanwhile, back at the ranch Nasser, licking his wounds cozied up to the Ruskies, further strenghtening the US ties. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Errr...no...that is not how the Suez Crisis went down. The USA's role was to intervene and pressure Israel, France, and Britain to back down. Canada invented "peacekeeping" to guard the resulting agreement.

I certainly don't think that the relationship has much to do with the fact that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east. American foreign policy has always been concerned with their own self interests (economic, political, military), hence the litany of dictatorships it has and still does support. Listen to the talking heads of american media as they lament the support of Mubarak for the last 30 years.

Agreed, Americans are concerned with American interest first. This is to be expected. Mubarak has served his purpose well...for the USA...Canada...and many other nations

[Jonsa]

Errr...no...that is not how the Suez Crisis went down. The USA's role was to intervene and pressure Israel, France, and Britain to back down. Canada invented "peacekeeping" to guard the resulting agreement.

Yes, I forgot that the US was advocating diplomatic resolution. Every Canadian knows about Pearson and peacekeeping.

Agreed, Americans are concerned with American interest first. This is to be expected. Mubarak has served his purpose well...for the USA...Canada...and many other nations

Yes, it is to be expected. One continually hopes for "enlightened" self interest to take hold, but unfortunately most nations are entirely too parochial to understand the other guy.

[WIP]

I am starting this post with quote from part of a post in the Egypt thread. Bob's right - it deserves its own thread.

There are many things that America, Canada, Australia and Israel have in common that no other countries have. They have strikingly similar early histories. All are nations built by pioneers, where the State had a role, albeit minor, in their development. While in Canada the Mounties often arrived ahead of the settlers, by and large, in all of these countries, groups of settlers had to sink or swim on their own. In the case of America, Canada, and Australia, mother England (and in the U.S. the national capital) was faraway, and had little concern with the day-to-day realities of frontier life. In Israel, the colonial government was an outright hindrance.

Also, all have in common being part of the English-speaking world. America, Canada, Australia and Israel have in common a tradition of an open economy based largely on trade with the rest of the world. That seafaring and eventually trading tradition has a drastic impact on culture. These countries look outward, whereas most other countries in the world look inward.

America, Canada, Australia and Israel have in common a broad freedom of religion. There are varying degrees of government involvement in religion but all allow free religious practice.

In short, it is natural that these countries be allies among themselves and, in differing degrees, with Great Britain.

The U.S.- Israel relationship is, to be sure, more special. Each country each possesses about 1/3 of the world's Jews. Jews have a greater imprint on these countries than any others. So yes, there is a very special relationship.

This special relationship is based on the assumption that Israel is just like us: western and democratic; and both of these assumptions do not match events in Israel over the last 30 years or so. The western, secular community of Israelis is shrinking, while the Orthodox, religious fanatic segment is growing in size and power:

Israel's Jewish Divide

Living with the enemy

Extant tensions regularly break out into full kulturkampf struggles in cities and towns throughout the country where ultra-Orthodox, Orthodox and seculars live side by side, often with little to no social contact.

These struggles usually start with efforts by ultra-Orthodox movements to open a synagogue or educational facility in a previously secular or less religiously stringent neighborhood - usually through the surreptitious exercise of power in local government coalitions to obtain budgets and permits.

In some cases this leads local neighborhood groups, often comprising residents of varying degrees of religiosity, to band together in usually losing efforts to force the local government to rescind permissions and prevent what they fear will be the movement of ultra-Orthodox into their area. Their fear is that 'Haredisation' will depress apartment prices; force shifts in public inter-sex cohabitation; impact women's freedom of dress; and color the public observance of holidays and the Sabbath.

In Jerusalem, the number of secular neighborhoods has shrunk markedly in recent years as the ultra-Orthodox population (22 percent of the populace) continues to grow. Young seculars continue to flee the increasingly religious and socio-economically stagnant city, which is now Israel's poorest.

However, kulturkampf struggles are also occurring in largely religious cities such as Bet Shemesh, where ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox residents are increasingly squaring off, and intra-Haredi violence appears to be on the rise.

In June 2008 a US immigrant was admitted to hospital after he was savagely beaten by a mob of fellow Haredim, and street signs have reportedly emerged in the city warning women to dress modestly - a precursor to 'modesty patrol' attacks in other cities.

That last paragraph reminds me of all of the freedom loving rightwingers here gloating about what the religious police are doing in Iran or Saudi Arabia etc.. Does this sound like a society just like ours?

Poll highlights Israel’s religious divide Tensions betweens secular and ultra-orthodox Jews far outstrip left-right divisions as a source of concern to Jewish Israelis, according to a new survey.

The poll published this week by Hiddush, an organisation promoting religious freedom and diversity in Israel, said 70 percent are opposed to the introduction of new religious legislation in Israel, where the Orthodox Rabbinate governs many aspects of people’s personal lives.

Rabbi Uri Regev, Director of Hiddush, said “the poll’s results demonstrate the vast gap between the wish of the public for freedom of religion and the government.”

Although the great majority of Jewish Israelis are not Orthodox they may only marry in Orthodox Jewish services. There are no civil courts for marriage or divorce, so many couples are obliged to go abroad in order to legalise their union or dissolve it. Mixed marriages are forbidden.

More than 300,000 immigrants not considered Jewish by the Orthodox Rabbinate cannot be married or divorced in Israel, nor can they be buried in public religious cemeteries when they die. There is only one public civil/secular burial plot in Israel.

In 2009 the budget for religious services for the Jewish population was 96 percent of total funding, although religious minorities (including Moslems, Christians, Druze, Baha’i and others) comprise slightly more than 20 percent of the population.

A

“Protection of Holy Places” law prohibits women praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem

. Police detained a 25-year-old medical student praying there last November and banned her from visiting the wall for 15 days.

Gender-segregated buses spark controversy in Israel Hundreds demonstrate in Jerusalem against sex segregation on buses.

Religious-Secular Divide, Tugging at Israel’s Heart

Are American Jews fooled by this sort of argument from Western equivalence:

Luntz’s task was to figure out what had gone wrong. When he probed the students’ views of Israel, he hit up against some firm beliefs. First, “they reserve the right to question the Israeli position.” These young Jews, Luntz explained, “resist anything they see as ‘group think.’” They want an “open and frank” discussion of Israel and its flaws. Second, “young Jews desperately want peace.” When Luntz showed them a series of ads, one of the most popular was entitled “Proof that Israel Wants Peace,” and listed offers by various Israeli governments to withdraw from conquered land. Third, “some empathize with the plight of the Palestinians.” When Luntz displayed ads depicting Palestinians as violent and hateful, several focus group participants criticized them as stereotypical and unfair, citing their own Muslim friends.

Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights. And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs. Luntz did not grasp the irony. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives.

Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral. If the leaders of groups like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them, and a mass of secular American Jews who range from apathetic to appalled. Saving liberal Zionism in the United States—so that American Jews can help save liberal Zionism in Israel—is the great American Jewish challenge of our age. And it starts where Luntz’s students wanted it to start: by talking frankly about Israel’s current government, by no longer averting our eyes.

But in Israel today, this humane, universalistic Zionism does not wield power.

You don’t have to be paranoid to see the connection between Lieberman’s current views and his former ones. The more you strip Israeli Arabs of legal protection, and the more you accuse them of treason, the more thinkable a policy of expulsion becomes. Lieberman’s American defenders often note that in theory he supports a Palestinian state. What they usually fail to mention is that for him, a two-state solution means redrawing Israel’s border so that a large chunk of Israeli Arabs find themselves exiled to another country, without their consent.

Israeli governments come and go, but the Netanyahu coalition is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society: an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism. In 2009, a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 53 percent of Jewish Israelis (and 77 percent of recent immigrants from the former USSR) support encouraging Arabs to leave the country. Attitudes are worst among Israel’s young. When Israeli high schools held mock elections last year, Lieberman won. This March, a poll found that 56 percent of Jewish Israeli high school students—and more than 80 percent of religious Jewish high school students—would deny Israeli Arabs the right to be elected to the Knesset. An education ministry official called the survey “a huge warning signal in light of the strengthening trends of extremist views among the youth.”

beinart_2-061010.jpg

The result is a terrible irony. In theory, mainstream American Jewish organizations still hew to a liberal vision of Zionism. On its website, AIPAC celebrates Israel’s commitment to “free speech and minority rights.” The Conference of Presidents declares that “Israel and the United States share political, moral and intellectual values including democracy, freedom, security and peace.” These groups would never say, as do some in Netanyahu’s coalition, that Israeli Arabs don’t deserve full citizenship and West Bank Palestinians don’t deserve human rights. But in practice, by defending virtually anything any Israeli government does, they make themselves intellectual bodyguards for Israeli leaders who threaten the very liberal values they profess to admire.

All of which raises an uncomfortable question. If American Jewish groups claim that Israel’s overseas human rights critics are motivated by anti- Israeli, if not anti-Semitic, bias, what does that say about Israel’s domestic human rights critics? The implication is clear: they must be guilty of self-hatred, if not treason. American Jewish leaders don’t generally say that, of course, but their allies in the Netanyahu government do.

In the American Jewish establishment today, the language of liberal Zionism—with its idioms of human rights, equal citizenship, and territorial compromise—has been drained of meaning. It remains the lingua franca in part for generational reasons, because many older American Zionists still see themselves as liberals of a sort. They vote Democratic; they are unmoved by biblical claims to the West Bank; they see average Palestinians as decent people betrayed by bad leaders; and they are secular. They don’t want Jewish organizations to criticize Israel from the left, but neither do they want them to be agents of the Israeli right.

Because they marry earlier, intermarry less, and have more children, Orthodox Jews are growing rapidly as a share of the American Jewish population. According to a 2006 American Jewish Committee (AJC) survey,

while Orthodox Jews make up only 12 percent of American Jewry over the age of sixty, they constitute 34 percent between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four.

For America’s Zionist organizations, these Orthodox youngsters are a potential bonanza. In their yeshivas they learn devotion to Israel from an early age; they generally spend a year of religious study there after high school, and often know friends or relatives who have immigrated to Israel. The same AJC study found that while only 16 percent of non-Orthodox adult Jews under the age of forty feel “very close to Israel,” among the Orthodox the figure is 79 percent. As secular Jews drift away from America’s Zionist institutions, their Orthodox counterparts will likely step into the breach. The Orthodox “are still interested in parochial Jewish concerns,” explains Samuel Heilman, a sociologist at the City University of New York. “They are among the last ones who stayed in the Jewish house, so they now control the lights.”

But it is this very parochialism—a deep commitment to Jewish concerns, which often outweighs more universal ones—that gives Orthodox Jewish Zionism a distinctly illiberal cast. The 2006 AJC poll found that while 60 percent of non-Orthodox American Jews under the age of forty support a Palestinian state, that figure drops to 25 percent among the Orthodox. In 2009, when Brandeis University’s Theodore Sasson asked American Jewish focus groups about Israel, he found Orthodox participants much less supportive of dismantling settlements as part of a peace deal. Even more tellingly, Reform, Conservative, and unaffiliated Jews tended to believe that average Palestinians wanted peace, but had been ill-served by their leaders. Orthodox Jews, by contrast, were more likely to see the Palestinian people as the enemy, and to deny that ordinary Palestinians shared any common interests or values with ordinary Israelis or Jews.

[Jonsa]

Religious fanatics come in all different flavours. The ultra orthodox jews behave in much the same manner as ultra orthodox islamists. They demand political preference, are intolerant, believe that they are most favoured by their god, insist on the supremacy of their interpretation of religious law, beleive that God gave them all of historic palestine, consider the "palestinians" to be the intruders, and are smug in the knowledge that they are chosen. Which may explain why they are not well liked outside of their communities.

[bush_cheney2004]

This special relationship is based on the assumption that Israel is just like us: western and democratic; and both of these assumptions do not match events in Israel over the last 30 years or so. The western, secular community of Israelis is shrinking, while the Orthodox, religious fanatic segment is growing in size and power:

That's OK...the assumption still has merit.....even more today. American domestic and foreign policy decisions are consistent with the attitudes and actions of secular and Orthodox Israelis to further security interests.

[jbg]

The "special relationship" started with the collective guilt over what happened to the jews in WW2.

More over the fact that just about every widget "nationality" got their own independent land during both the post-WWI and WWII eras. And also the need to find a place to put the surviving European Jews, since clearly their safety could not be guaranteed if they returned to their "home" village. Further, the Nazis had redistributed Jewish property to others, and having two hostile families sleeping in the same home and operating the same business would have been most uncomfortable.

It was further strengthened when the Arabs got really pissed with the US over their immediate recognition of Israel upon beating the snot outta the the collective arab armies (jordanians excepted) in the war of independence.

Remind me, who attacked who on May 15, 1948? And which armies were fielded from existing nations and hence more organized?

It was further strengthened in 56 when Nasser closed the Suez and the British, French and US "encouraged" Israel to beat the snot outta the Egyptians once again. Meanwhile, back at the ranch Nasser, licking his wounds cozied up to the Ruskies, further strenghtening the US ties. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And who shut the Canal down, starting that particular war?

couple the political machinations with the fact that evangelical americans NEED to have the jews in Israel. It says so in their book.

Perhaps the Old Testament, which is sacred to the Jews themselves, not just "evangelical (A)mericans".

I certainly don't think that the relationship has much to do with the fact that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.

Too straightforward an analysis for you?

American foreign policy has always been concerned with their own self interests (economic, political, military), hence the litany of dictatorships it has and still does support. Listen to the talking heads of american media as they lament the support of Mubarak for the last 30 years.

Perhaps that has something to do with the inability of the various other people in the region to sort out their differences without bloodshed and chaos?

And as for the side play about palestinians right to self determination. I beleive they have the right. Now if only they could get their collective heads outta their butts and started behaving like adults and focus on BUILDING for the future instead of wallowing in hatreds of the past, they might stand a chance of exercising that right.

Perhaps then borders could be deliberately porous so that non-continguous groups could move across bordering lands. Before the 911 debacle, did anyone really care where the Canadian/American border was? Are Point Roberts (surrounded by BC, link) and Angle Country (surrounded by far northwest Ontario, link), as American exclaves, operating smoothly though both are surrounded by Canada?

As it is right now, regardless of their rights, given their monotonouosly repeated vows to liberate all of historic palestine, their chances are about nil. There isn't a rational person in the world who would let somebody who has REPEATEDLY demonstrated their fanatic desire to kill them and their families to roam free in the next yard over.

So true. And justified. Edited February 4, 2011 by jbg

[Rue]

he just happens to be a hypocrite douchebag.

by stating that the jews are entitled to self-determination and freedom, while shooting down criticism of and then excusing those who take that right away from the palestinian, he shows that he's a hypocrite. his constant self-patting and self-obsessed posts make him a douche bag.

Did that make you feel better? I know you disagree with him. I know his opinions are much different then yours. It doesn't make either of you a douche bag it just means you disagree with one another.

How about I put it in terms you understand. If I said I think you are being a douche bag because you are calling Bob a douche bag would that sound credible? You are engaging in the very things you accuse Bob of doing.

Look just because I don't agree with many of your opinions does not mean I think you are a douche bag nor does it make me one. ( I am a douche bag for other reasons thank you)

Isn't it possible we can disagree without insulting one another and getting personal? Come on. Is it the anger in you? Can you express your views without getting so angry you need to insult the person you disagree with?

This is precisely how wars come about-because we get so caught up in our arguements we become emotionally attached to them and project negative emotions on others.

I am as guilty of it as you. I admit it here and now.

Bob may have quirks and characteristics you do not like but many could same the same of you and me and everyone else. You want to be accurate we are all douche bags. Every last one of us with me at the head of the list.

So enough Bud. Stick to the issues. If you get that angry then don't respond to him. You undermine your own credibility when you do that. I speak from experience. I have lost it many times.

I am not trying to pull a righteous trip on you at all. I just don't see though how you calling him names will do anything but invite them back.

Let's focus on the issues.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Rue

[Rue]

WIP the article you posted made these quotes I would agree with:

-western, secular community of Israelis is shrinking, while the Orthodox, religious fanatic segment is growing in size and power:

-extant tensions regularly break out into full kulturkampf struggles in cities and towns throughout the country where ultra-Orthodox, Orthodox and seculars live side by side, often with little to no social contact.

-in Jerusalem, the number of secular neighborhoods has shrunk markedly in recent years as the ultra-Orthodox population (22 percent of the populace) continues to grow

-young seculars continue to flee the increasingly religious and socio-economically stagnant city, which is now Israel's poorest.

-kulturkampf struggles are also occurring in largely religious cities such as Bet Shemesh, where ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox residents are increasingly squaring off, and intra-Haredi violence appears to be on the rise

-the great majority of Jewish Israelis are not Orthodox they may only marry in Orthodox Jewish services

-there are no civil courts for marriage or divorce, so many couples are obliged to go abroad in order to legalise their union or dissolve it. Mixed marriages are forbidden.

-more than 300,000 immigrants not considered Jewish by the Orthodox Rabbinate cannot be married or divorced in Israel, nor can they be buried in public religious cemeteries when they die. There is only one public civil/secular burial plot in Israel.

in 2009 the budget for religious services for the Jewish population was 96 percent of total funding, although religious minorities (including Moslems, Christians, Druze, Bahai and others) comprise slightly more than 20 percent of the population

-a Protection of Holy Places law prohibits women praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem

All of the above I I checked for myself and verified and corroborated.

In the next post I will explain what I do not agree with in the article you quoted but concede right now, this is a valid article to quote to present the discussion point you are and I think its a valuable one and captures many concerns I have as a secular, non religious Zionist.

When presented as you have I must openly acknowledge the above and not pretend it is not so.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Rue

[Jonsa]

Remind me, who attacked who on May 15, 1948? And which armies were fielded from existing nations and hence more organized?

The Israelis were far more organized than the arabs. They had a cadre of hardened war veterans and a unified command and control. They even outnumbered the arabs fighters. As to who attacked who, technically the arabs, but tell me the Israelis didn't know that their declaration of independence on the 14th was also a declaration of war with the Arabs. And the Israelis beat the snot out of the arab armies with the exception of the Jordanians who achieved their primary objectives of capturing the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

And who shut the Canal down, starting that particular war?

Yes, of course, forget about the imperial French and British attempting to retain control of the canal. Nasty national aspirations of the Egyptians wot? You seem to have a rather simplistic view of the history of the region. The Israelis attacked first in this one, nothwithstanding the constant skirmishes and raids into each others territory since the armistice.

Perhaps the Old Testament, which is sacred to the Jews themselves, not just "evangelical (A)mericans".

Too straightforward an analysis for you?

Er, I was talking about the American's relationship with Israel, not the Israelis relationship with the torah and their land.

[bud]

Did that make you feel better? I know you disagree with him. I know his opinions are much different then yours. It doesn't make either of you a douche bag it just means you disagree with one another.

How about I put it in terms you understand. If I said I think you are being a douche bag because you are calling Bob a douche bag would that sound credible? You are engaging in the very things you accuse Bob of doing.

Look just because I don't agree with many of your opinions does not mean I think you are a douche bag nor does it make me one. ( I am a douche bag for other reasons thank you)

Isn't it possible we can disagree without insulting one another and getting personal? Come on. Is it the anger in you? Can you express your views without getting so angry you need to insult the person you disagree with?

This is precisely how wars come about-because we get so caught up in our arguements we become emotionally attached to them and project negative emotions on others.

I am as guilty of it as you. I admit it here and now.

Bob may have quirks and characteristics you do not like but many could same the same of you and me and everyone else. You want to be accurate we are all douche bags. Every last one of us with me at the head of the list.

So enough Bud. Stick to the issues. If you get that angry then don't respond to him. You undermine your own credibility when you do that. I speak from experience. I have lost it many times.

I am not trying to pull a righteous trip on you at all. I just don't see though how you calling him names will do anything but invite them back.

Let's focus on the issues.

when opinions lack credibility and go against facts, then i don't think there is any problem with not accepting the person's comments.

i'll put it this way; if i like cheesecake but bob says he doesn't like cheesecake, then that's his opinion and i have no problem accepting his comments as an opinion.

however, when bob says that the land in the west bank and east jerusalem 'is our land' (meaning to the jews), then i am not going to accept that. i will also not accept his opinion, when he says systematic ethnic cleansing is not happening in east jerusalem, when the facts on the ground say otherwise. fact being: arab properties being destroyed, property permit not being given to arabs, 'jewish only' homes being built on top of what used to be arab property. that behaviour is enough for me to conclude that those who are in power, are doing their best to push arabs out of east jerusalem in favour of jewish settlers.

since we're on the topic of bob and his problem with facts, here he is again, this time responding to comments made by the former head of AIPAC, confirming my opinion about AIPAC's influence on the american government. he simply tries to sweep it under the rug by calling what steiner said as "imagined influence".

sometimes opinions are backed up by facts and sometimes, like in the case of bob, opinions clash with facts.

i will continue to call on bob's misinformation and the false image that he tries to create. he is nothing but a propagandist who is here, not to talk about the truth, but to create an alternate image of the conflict in order to unconditionally support his tribe.

[Rue]

WP I am a non religious Labour type Zionist, the kind this article supposedly refers to as being endangered. So I find it interesting how my type of Zionist is being described.

First of all I reject the literary device of taking students and using them as the justification for subjective generalizations such as comments like this:

"Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights."

The above description is a projection by the writer. I have the exact same views as he has described as do man Jews but we are not liberals broadly defined-we in fact reflect the moral views of Western culture. The above views are not the exclusive domain of liberals. They are also the domain of classic conservatives, libertarians, socialists, a wide range of political approaches.

The writer then takes the above generalization and then patronizes these students by projecting on to them virginity, naivite, gullability, etc.:

" And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel."

No one has said when it comes to being a supporter of Israel I must shed the above views. No one is pressuring me, these students or any Jews or non Jews who have similiar views from being able to have these opinions and support the right of Israel to exist. That is the writer projecting his bias on us and creating this Zionist monster supposedly threatening us. Thank you I do not need this writer to patronize me, stereotype me and tell me I am being asked to give up my views if I wish to support Israel. In fact the conservatives on this board who support Israel and consider my Labour Zionist views a bunch of manure have never insulted me, pressured me, or told me I am less of a Jew or Zionist then they. If anything I have blasted some of them not the other way around. I know many right wing conservatives-they are actually quite respectful of individual differences of opinion. The kind of ultra religious Zionist intolerant of my views who would best be described as a fundamentalist settler or Jewish religious Zionist are a minority of Jews and Israelis. They are vocal but they are a minority and no they are not a mythical force that threatens to castrate me or any other Jew.

You want to understand the psyche of Jews-its simple-understand that we disagree on most things and openly debate them. For one reason look at the Talmud. It is a book that provides a starting point to commence debate. Our religion and culture does not believe in absolute dogma. We believe our collective approach to life is in a constant state of mutation-whether we range from humanist/atheist to ultra-orthodox the one thing we have in common is that our method of process constantly is in seach of a new meaning to things. It is not stagnant. The writer makes us appear fixed in entrenched views blowing hot air at each other from these entrenched positions. No in reality we are all over the place.

The writer stated:

"The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs."

Again the writer takes liberty in restating an opinion throwing in his own subjective bias and opinions and projecting it as being one and the same with the students. He sees want he wants to see and hears what he wants to hear.

I can assure you that I and these students and many Jews believe as do most Israelis that Palestinians deserve dignity and peace and their own state and we are not afraid to criticize ourselves. For heaven's sake the Israeli knesset, press, court system are blatant examples of how Israelis are open about this self criticism. We don't exactly hide it. There are hundreds of human rights organizations in Israel and the Knesset is always bedlam.

However to stereotype us and say the ONLY kind of Zionism we find attrative is.....is a pretentious and ridiculous statement. We don't ever believe in an ONLY kind of Zionism.

For us Zionism was never and will never be just one kind. Zionism is not a fixed black and white concept. It is in constant change so if this writer bothered to put aside their own political biases they would realize those of us he thinks see ONLY ONE possible Zionism do not. We see many, in fact an infinite number of variations.

The writer said:

" Luntz did not grasp the irony."

Again the writer presumes to know how Luntz thinks and feels and assumes because the writer has this opinion that there is an irony, Luntz could not grasp it. No Luntz was probably no different than me-he probably does not understand why some people try to pigeon hole Zionists and try label us with simplistic black and white generalizations. The only irony

is the writer claiming to know what others think and believe and can reduce them to simplistic stereotypes necessarily in conflict with one another. Its a patronizing approach where the writer assumes to know what these Jews want let alone they can't have.

I make the exact comments above for this comment the writer said:

"The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives."

What crap. Those students, me, most Jews do not limit our visions of Zionism let alone find oourselves being worked against by some alleged American Jewish establishment. What a crock. This statement creates the stereotype of a reavtionary American Jewish establishment conspiring against Zionists such as myself. Thanks but don't patronize me and presume to tell me who in the Jewish community is working against me.

The alleged establishment is no different then the gentile establishment. It contains people of all beliefs ranging from extreme self-hating and denying Jew to anti Zionist but none the less Jew atheist Jewish Zionist to non religious but still God believing Jew to conservative to orthodox to ultra orthodox Zionist to ultra orthodox non Zionist. There are all kinds of us some believe in religious Zionism others see Zionism as completely without rreligion and see our Jewish identity as a political or cultural one. To stereotype us as a oone ideology establishment is a joke. Its nothing more then a crude variation of yet another attempt to stereotype the Jew into this uniform character of predictability.

The writer stated:

"Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral."

Now we see the real personal bias of the writer. Let's get this straight. People like me have never felt morally stronger even though we feel as people who support peace and what Obama is doing it makes us unpopular or because of current circumstances it makes it difficult if not impossible for us to find Palestinian peace partners.

No we are not in a downward spiral any more then we have ever been in an upward one. Zionism doesn't ride spirals. It is simply the common heart beat of Jews. No more, no less.

It remains constant. Jews don't ride trends. We either breath or we die. There is no debate as to whether we need to exist. That remains constant. The only debate is which strategies will best enable us to continue to survive and of course that is a fluid, constantly mutating arguement in progress.

Now it didn't take time for the usual patronizing if you Jews know what's good for you...you had better know your place speech, i.e.,

"If the leaders of groups like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them, and a mass of secular American Jews who range from apathetic to appalled."

Right. There it is. I better wake up or these Orthodox Jews will get me. Thanks. This does nothing but resurrect the Jew as boogy man monster theme only it appeals to me as a Jew to believe it. What I am supposed to be afraid of orthodox Jews? That is what it says.

Oh but wait the writer tells me how I can be a good as opposed to boogy man Jew....

" by talking frankly about Israel’s current government, by no longer averting our eyes."

O.k. listen up. Jews talk frankly. If anything we talk too frankly. Thanks but I do not need to have anyone patronize me and tell me to fear any kind of Jew let alone avert my eyes. Who the f...ck does this writer think he is adopting that tone of presumption?

He's going to lecture Jews and tell us we need to criticize Israel and fear orthodox jews?

Gee thanks. I will start right now. The next Hasidic or Orthodox Jew I will run up to and yell "shame..shame..".

Just once can I read an article questioning Israel's future that doesn't revert into purile anegative stereotypes of Jews as evil boogy men who need to be captured and conquered because they are evil and going to spread their germs.

Oh but wait just so you are clear that today's Israel is full of evil Jews here is the vision for you:

"in Israel today, this humane, universalistic Zionism does not wield power"

As well just in case you did not know Netanyahu is a boogy evil Hew because...

" the Netanyahu coalition is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society"

and in case you didn't know who he is a monster for let's trot out the latest version fo the evil jew stereotype:

"an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism."

There we go got it. We no longer need to use descriptions like hook nose or sinister money lender. We just throw out terms like Russian immigrant and settler. Just as effective without having to use the word "hook nosed".

Oh by the way just in case you missed it these evil Jews have sucked me of all my blood:

"the language of liberal Zionism—with its idioms of human rights, equal citizenship, and territorial compromise—has been drained of meaning."

Yes thanks. Thank you for letting me know I am drained.

Oh but wait I am an old fart too....

"It remains the lingua franca in part for generational reasons, because many older American Zionists still see themselves as liberals of a sort. They vote Democratic; they are unmoved by biblical claims to the West Bank; they see average Palestinians as decent people betrayed by bad leaders; and they are secular."

Right. I am a dithering old twat.

Shut up.I heard that.

[WIP]

WP I am a non religious Labour type Zionist, the kind this article supposedly refers to as being endangered. So I find it interesting how my type of Zionist is being described.

First, let me say that I am glad that you share some of the concerns of the writers of those articles I collected on secular/orthodox tensions in Israel. There seem to be others who have a large blindspot regarding this problem in spite of the growing militancy of the orthodox communities, and it's implications for any serious peace negotiations.

First of all I reject the literary device of taking students and using them as the justification for subjective generalizations such as comments like this:

"Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights."

The above description is a projection by the writer. I have the exact same views as he has described as do man Jews but we are not liberals broadly defined-we in fact reflect the moral views of Western culture. The above views are not the exclusive domain of liberals. They are also the domain of classic conservatives, libertarians, socialists, a wide range of political approaches.

The writer then takes the above generalization and then patronizes these students by projecting on to them virginity, naivite, gullability, etc.:

Don't forget that the writer was quoting Frank Luntz - the notorious Republican pollster, who was commissioned by some wealthy Jewish zionists to find out why young American Jews were not as vigorously defending Israel as they would like. He's the one who considers open debate, an aversion to using military force, and commitment to human rights to be liberal values.....and he doesn't consider them to be the values shared by his brand of conservatives. To Luntz and his Republican cohorts, these are exclusive values of liberal surrender monkeys!

You want to understand the psyche of Jews-its simple-understand that we disagree on most things and openly debate them. For one reason look at the Talmud. It is a book that provides a starting point to commence debate. Our religion and culture does not believe in absolute dogma. We believe our collective approach to life is in a constant state of mutation-whether we range from humanist/atheist to ultra-orthodox the one thing we have in common is that our method of process constantly is in seach of a new meaning to things. It is not stagnant. The writer makes us appear fixed in entrenched views blowing hot air at each other from these entrenched positions. No in reality we are all over the place.

I've heard it said that Judaism is a religion of practice, rather than a religion of belief and confession. In my teenage years, I worked in a restaurant owned by a concentration camp survivor who lost all of his immediate family and almost all of his relations from the village in Poland where they lived; he said that he could not understand how anyone could believe there was a God who was concerned with man after what he had seen....and yet he was an observant Jew, married a Jew, and raised his children to carry on the tradition.

I can assure you that I and these students and many Jews believe as do most Israelis that Palestinians deserve dignity and peace and their own state and we are not afraid to criticize ourselves. For heaven's sake the Israeli knesset, press, court system are blatant examples of how Israelis are open about this self criticism. We don't exactly hide it. There are hundreds of human rights organizations in Israel and the Knesset is always bedlam.

Some of the paragraphs that I edited out in that long article were regarding Israeli politics. In particular, the author sees a rise in extremist opinions that want to expel Arabs, most notably the Foreign Minister - Lieberman, who is mentioned as having been a member of Meir Kahane's Party in his younger days, and today, wants to force Israeli Arabs to swear a loyalty oath to Israel, and expel those who refuse. Since this is coming from someone already in the Government, how effective should we consider those safeguards of liberty you mention, if this sort of policy becomes law at a future date.

What crap. Those students, me, most Jews do not limit our visions of Zionism let alone find oourselves being worked against by some alleged American Jewish establishment. What a crock. This statement creates the stereotype of a reavtionary American Jewish establishment conspiring against Zionists such as myself. Thanks but don't patronize me and presume to tell me who in the Jewish community is working against me.

There's not much I can work with in this criticism, since you criticize the author's subjective sense of how other Jews feel about Zionism with your own subjective interpretation of how the students, and "most Jews" regard Zionism. I have no way to evaluate this sort of argument.

The writer stated:

"Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral."

No we are not in a downward spiral any more then we have ever been in an upward one. Zionism doesn't ride spirals. It is simply the common heart beat of Jews. No more, no less.

He was referencing the leaders of major organizations and lobby groups like AIPAC, for supporting the most aggressive, hardline policies for dealing with Palestinians and Arab states, while, according to polling data, being totally out of synch with the wishes of American Jews, who expect Israel to be making every effort to seek a peaceful resolution to the neverending war. In the U.S., groups like AIPAC seem to be devoting most of their attention to the whacked out Christian Zionist elements, who are anxious for Israel to fulfill their vision of Biblical prophecy....in other words blow up!

"If the leaders of groups like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them, and a mass of secular American Jews who range from apathetic to appalled."

Right. There it is. I better wake up or these Orthodox Jews will get me. Thanks. This does nothing but resurrect the Jew as boogy man monster theme only it appeals to me as a Jew to believe it. What I am supposed to be afraid of orthodox Jews? That is what it says.

I can recall one big example of how the growing power of the orthodox in Israel changed the whole strategy after the 6 day war. Specifically, up until the Likud of Menachem Begin took power, most members of the previous Labour governments were more interested in keeping the Sinai, or as much of the Sinai as possible, than they were about planting a flag in the West Bank. The only part of the West Bank that Labour considered important was East Jerusalem; the rest had a large population of Arabs, and was not worth much from an economic perspective. On the other hand, the Sinai was a big, empty stretch of desert, that could be developed and farmed in many locations, and had mineral resources. Today, the Egyptians have the oil that's been developed there, as well as the Israeli resorts, that are now owned by Egypt and collect big returns from Israeli tourists. But the orthodox who supported Likud and Begin, decided that was the land to bargain away for peace, because it had no religious significance. Instead they wanted the already crowded "Judea and Samaria", and have to displace Palestinians to build new settlements on "holy land!"

It seems to me that the pragmatic, secular Labour Party would have unloaded most of the West Bank for a future Palestinian state, and instead tried to keep at least a chunk of the Sinai as war reparations. It would have been more likely to negotiate a peace agreement from pure economic motives, than the religious motivations of Likud's supporters.

" the Netanyahu coalition is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society"

and in case you didn't know who he is a monster for let's trot out the latest version fo the evil jew stereotype:

"an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism."

Well, I don't see it as faux concern here. Any time there are religious zealots talking about their holy land, there's no room to negotiate anything. If Israel is becoming more orthodox and more theocratic, it looks more and more like those Islamic fundamentalist states than it does with a western, democratic society.

[Rue]

when opinions lack credibility and go against facts, then i don't think there is any problem with not accepting the person's comments.

i'll put it this way; if i like cheesecake but bob says he doesn't like cheesecake, then that's his opinion and i have no problem accepting his comments as an opinion.

however, when bob says that the land in the west bank and east jerusalem 'is our land' (meaning to the jews), then i am not going to accept that. i will also not accept his opinion, when he says systematic ethnic cleansing is not happening in east jerusalem, when the facts on the ground say otherwise. fact being: arab properties being destroyed, property permit not being given to arabs, 'jewish only' homes being built on top of what used to be arab property. that behaviour is enough for me to conclude that those who are in power, are doing their best to push arabs out of east jerusalem in favour of jewish settlers.

since we're on the topic of bob and his problem with facts, here he is again, this time responding to comments made by the former head of AIPAC, confirming my opinion about AIPAC's influence on the american government. he simply tries to sweep it under the rug by calling what steiner said as "imagined influence".

sometimes opinions are backed up by facts and sometimes, like in the case of bob, opinions clash with facts.

i will continue to call on bob's misinformation and the false image that he tries to create. he is nothing but a propagandist who is here, not to talk about the truth, but to create an alternate image of the conflict in order to unconditionally support his tribe.

Go for it then. Just don't lower yourself to calling him personal names and preface your opinions with the words "in my opinion". I must try do the same thing. When you and I or anyone else on this forum forget to preface our remarks with "in my opinion" we sound like we believe our opinion is the only valid one. Even if you feel that way the fact is you and I when we come on this board must make it clear when what we say is a subjective opinion or in fact based on an objectively established fact. In fact, youur subjective opinions are no more truthful then Bob's. In fact opinions are not fact, they are opinions.

Neither here nor there. All I am trying to get you to do is stop with the name calling. I understand you get heated and intense in your beliefs. I do too. I am asking you to try what I am trying and fail at some times too.

[Rue]

Resonding again to your comments in quotation WP;

"First, let me say that I am glad that you share some of the concerns of the writers of those articles I collected on secular/orthodox tensions in Israel. "

I must concede them. They are all capable of being corroborated with objective evidence. As well the article may contain subjective opinions I spit at, but I concede they are directly on point to this debate and you were perfectly on point raising them and they must be considered.

You stated:

"Don't forget that the writer was quoting Frank Luntz - the notorious Republican pollster, who was commissioned by some wealthy Jewish zionists to find out why young American Jews were not as vigorously defending Israel as they would like."

Yes and I find that rather ironic. That is an excellent point. No one finds that more ironic than do I.

"I've heard it said that Judaism is a religion of practice, rather than a religion of belief and confession."

Yes. That is a huge differebce in mind set between Judaism and Christianity. Both are supposed to be codes to follow, but in Christianity there is a concept of being able to confess and start again when you screw up. We technically don't have that although it would be incorrect to say we don't have something that forgives us. We do have the ceremony of Yom Kippur where we basically apologize to God for screwing up for the entire lasy year, and re-create our promise to try be a good person the next year. So that is a sort of cleansing ritual but most times we don't have that ability to alleviate the sin and seek forgiveness. The religion in that respect is tough love. I think one of the reasons we have Christianity was the need to seek a more compassionate way to deal with screw ups.

I do not doubt people found our God forboding and mean and looked to a more gentle image. Thus Jesus feels a void in that respect. His image and role is when you think about it a lot gentler and personal than the traditional role between God and Jews. We go from an angry distant God to one of flesh and blood who symbolically hugs people when they screw up.

"Some of the paragraphs that I edited out in that long article were regarding Israeli politics. In particular, the author sees a rise in extremist opinions that want to expel Arabs, most notably the Foreign Minister - Lieberman..."

Yes I certainly appreciate that. I have read the entire article. Between you and me I personally with no surprise to you would categorically reject what Lieberman stands for and I am greatly worried about the future of Israel if his kind of opinion became mainstream and I admit its growing. Ironically I am not sure what you call someone like him. I consider him first and foremost myself a bigot. Is he that way because of orthodox jewish beliefs. Here I get confused. I know orthodox Jews who are not anyway like him and feel his extremism is not in the spirit of what the Talmud teaches us. Then again I know fundamentalist orthodox Jews like him. I am not even sure if one could call him a religious Jew. Russian Jews are very pragmatic, tough people. Something about living in the former Soviet Union hardened them. There is a lack of gentility in their approach. Its tough. Its cold. Its very competitive. I am generalizing with my own subjective feedback of it of course.

I personally do not think young Israelis embrace Lieberman at all. I think young Israelis are very existential if I may use that word. Their very lives are an absurdity they struggle to find a meaning for. They reject his words. Young Israelis want to get along with young people all over the world. They don't want to be hated and isolated. I again generalize but I feedback what they have told me. I concede its just my opinion. I do not claim my opinion is any more valid then anyone else's.

You stated:

"There's not much I can work with in this criticism, since you criticize the author's subjective sense of how other Jews feel about Zionism with your own subjective interpretation of how the students, and "most Jews" regard Zionism. I have no way to evaluate this sort of argument."

Yes thank you for acknowledging the above. That is a crucial point I was making. On the first part of the article it is possible to discuss it in a dettached way because the information is there to test it. The second part becomes subjective and I thought you would find it interesting to hear from the words of the very person this writer stereotypes.

You stated:

"... leaders of major organizations and lobby groups like AIPAC...supporting the most aggressive, hardline policies for dealing with Palestinians and Arab states...totally out of synch with the wishes of American Jews, who expect Israel to be making every effort to seek a peaceful resolution to the neverending war. .."

In regards to that reference by the writer let me say this. American Jews are no different then the rest of us Jews in the diaspora, i.e., Canada, Britain, Argentina, etc., and in Israel. All Jews want and expect Israel to be making every effort to seek a peaceful resolution. You just need to read and listen to the dialogue between us Jews to know that.

As well I don't think its fair to Christians who do support Israel's right to exist to depict them all as hard liners. There are elements in AIPAC, the B'Nai B'Rith, in other Jewish and non Jewish organizations that support Israel all kinds of differing opinions on what it will take and should be done to achieve piece. I think the writer is dead wrong to think AIPAC is just a mouthpiece. It has openly had disagreements with Likud,Barak, Levni, Dayan, Rabin, to name but a few disputes. Its true some Jewish leaders are very supportive of Israel but its a misnomer to try package Jewish dialogue into neat categories. In fact our opinions are all over the place.

Now its interesting you talk of the rise of Menachem Begin and Likud and how the focus went to the West Bank. I must chide you a bit. Although I am no Likud supporter at all and a major proponent of Labour Zionism, fair is fair, the Likud didn't suddenly show an interest in the West Bank. That preoccupation came about simply because of where the terrorists went to. The preoccupation to go into the West Bank was not religious by Likud it was anti-terrorist and they did nothing different than the Labour governments would have done. Both parties disagree on many things but not strategy against terrorists. So lets be fair. Israel went into the West Bank primarily to head off terrorist attacks.

It planted settlers as early warning posts. It welcomed crazy fanatical Biblical Zionists because sane people were not willing to live in little early warning posts and constantly have to fight incoming terrorists.

Israel used these settlers because at the time did not have sattelite technology or the evesdropping equipment they have now.

As well if you knew anything about military tactics you would know the Sinai is inhospitable for war. Neither the Egyptians or Israels want it. The only thing of interest to either is Sharem El Shaik for tourism.

Genuinely the only true strategic concerns for Israel are the Golan Heights, the Lebanese border and the West Bank.

The Sinai swallows up tanks as they roll across due to the heat. It has limited use as a buffer zone. Today conventional tank warfare is less of a factor as it was in 1973 or 1967. Today most wars are fought in close quarters in city streets with no room for tanks and thus modified personnel carriers and helicopters have become the crucial weapons as well as satellites and unmanned drones and sophisticated listening posts.

Israel never wanted the Sinai.The truth though is they always felt the Golan and West Bank as well as Lebanese borders were vulnerable to terrorist penetration as well as the border with Gaza and their ocean front.

You said;

"If Israel is becoming more orthodox and more theocratic, it looks more and more like those Islamic fundamentalist states than it does with a western, democratic society."

I am stating to you yes, it could but I also think its misleading to ignore the fact that the majority of Jews reject extremist fundamentalism in Judaism and its not fair to them to take a vocal minority and give them more power, influence or credit then they deserve. I making the same arguements Egyptians are now when people make statements they they are extremists because of their Muslim Brotherhood.

I think Israelis are too Western to fall into a religious theocracy. Israeli women are far too liberated to allow themselves to be turned into step and fetch its. Young Israelis are speaking out. There is a dynamic press, dynamic peace groups and human rights organizations and the average Israeli who is the pith and substance of the IDF do not embrace religion in the army and the orthodox Rabbiahs in the IDF.

Anyways, appreciate your feedback. It certainly is interesting.

I do have my concerns Israel does not turn into a fundamentalist theocracy of course.

So I am trying to concede a concern yes but at the same time spit at what I consider unfair stereotypes. I trust I did not get any of your clothes wet. If I did sorry.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Rue