What prevents peace?

For Arabs, Israel's "occupation" of Judea, Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza in 1967 and subsequent settlement is only part of the problem.

The real issue is Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as a Jewish state. No "peace plan" - even the most extreme which requires Israel to withdraw from all territory conquered in 1967 - will solve the Arab-Muslim problem of allowing a nominally Jewish state to exist in any form.

From the Arab perspective, therefore, there are two overlapping "occupations:" one in 1948 and the other in 1967. Resolving one while legitimizing the other is (for them) unacceptable. Jewish sovereignty and self-determination – Zionism - are anathema.

That's why President Obama's "peace plan" won't work; it assumes that Arabs are interested in accommodation. No matter what concessions Israel makes, however, they will not be enough as long as Israel itself remains in any form. Because Zionism, as the Arab and Muslim world sees it, is racism, an evil that must be eradicated.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3773419,00.html

I think this is a pretty pessimistic view of the conflict, but the author makes a good point about the Arab and Muslims view of Zionism, in fact we see this view expressed here at DU. How can a good solution ever be found when many people simply cannot not accept a Jewish state in the ME?

Islam is the predominant religion in the region, and Muslims resent competition from the Judeo-Christian faiths. That's a rivalry that goes back to the figure of Abraham, whether he be historical or mythological.

To me, since the issue is "true religion," it amounts to charlatans arguing over who is a charlatan. Quite completely absurd!

But Israel is supposed to be a sanctuary for the persecuted Jews, and they are not going to give it up. Nor are they going to permit themselves to be out populated by indigenous non-Jews until political control is diluted away. Because that means the Jewish sanctuary goes bye-bye.

Arab Muslims would do well to accept the reality of Jewish Israel and get on with turning Gaza into the flourishing garden which Gaza could be, and which the world stands ready to help make happen.

There is a big difference between opposing Judaism in general, and opposing the specific proposition that Israel should be a discriminatorily Jewish state.

and why aren't Jews eligible like others for self-determination?

But just because it isn't going to happen doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good thing if it did.

Jews are as eligible for self determination as anyone else. As a British Jew, I have the right to vote in British elections.

It doesn't mean the right to vote. That's a right of citizenship. Self determination is the right of a nation (the French, the Japanese, the Jews) to have a state where their national identity predominates (France, Japan, Israel). So why don't the Jews have a right to a Jewish state the same way that the French have a right to a French state, or the Japanese have a right to a Japanese state?

then they can move to Israel. The question is a red herring. The issue is why the Jews arent' entitled to a Jewish state at all.

can a Muslim from say Iraq move to Iran {a self named Islamic Republic) or Saudi Arabia or any other self named Islamic country and enjoy full rights as a citizen? For that matter I have seen the US called a Christian country by some on this board, so can a French Christian move here and enjoy full citizenship rights simply do to the fact that they are Christians? I believe you'll find the answer to both questions is NO.
IMO the "red herring" here is the claim that Jews do not deserve their own country or deserve self determination that is patently untrue the problem that at least most on this board have is the across the board discriminatory immigration policy in Israel that allows most Jews instant citizenship and rights while denying those instant rights to others nonJews can immigrate to Israel but are required to go though a different process.

Realize all Jews are welcome to Israel, not just religious types. OTOH, christians and muslims who become atheists are no longer considered christian or muslim. Not so for Jews.

ethnicity and nationality
eta add religion to that Judaism is both a religion and an ethnic designation it is not however a nationality such as French British American ect Israeli Jews and nonJews are Israeli's

Neither is Christian. They are religions. Jewish is a nation (ethnicity?) based on a set of religious values.

Jews have always considered themselves a nation defined by their values, particularly their religious values.

There's never been a nationality called Jew. There's one called Israeli, which is what describes people who are citizens of the state of Israel. I think people are getting what nationality actually is mixed up with other things...

I never said that Jewish was a nationality. I said that the Jews were a nation. You misrepresented what I wrote to make your point, which makes it completely invalid. Nationality refers to citizenship; allegiance to a government. Nation or nationhood refers to a cultural identity. For example, someone can be of Italian ancestry and be a French national. Someone can be a Jew and an Italian national.

'Self determination is the right of a nation (the French, the Japanese, the Jews) to have a state where their national identity predominates (France, Japan, Israel).'

French is the nationality of citizens of France.
Japanese is the nationality of citizens of Japan.
Israeli, and not Jewish, is the nationality of citizens of Israel...

And I did not misrepresent what you said at all. Is there a need for you to be nasty?

the fact is it's a state for all Jews - religious or not - which distinguishes it from the typical Muslim or Christian state (for believers in those faiths).

Well, except for the Vatican, and unlike Israel, it doesn't let any Christian live there just because they're a Christian.

What's wrong with Israel being a state for all its citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion?

They are Christian-majority; may have official religions (Britain has the 'Church of England'); and have laws and policies that do not enforce Christianity, but do favour Christian customs - e.g. observing Sunday rather than e.g. Friday as the 'day of rest', and Christian rather than Jewish or Muslim public holidays.

I've never heard the UK refer to itself as a Christian state the way Israel refers to itself as a Jewish state, nor have I ever known of the UK to demand that other states recognise it as a Christian state. I'm Anglican. If the UK was 'Christian' in the same sense that Israel's Jewish, then the UK would let anyone who's Christian move there just because they're Christian. And the way the Israeli govt goes on about maintaining a Jewish majority would be at home coming from the BNP in the UK, but I don't recall any mainstream politicians touting the demographic obsession that many Israeli mainstream politicians have. I'm pretty sure the UK doesn't have an official religion, though it may have back in the dim darkies to fend of Catholicism....

There are no Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu holidays that are national holidays in England, only Christian ones.

The UK is a Christian country with an established national church and with several state holidays arranged around Christian observances.

Obviously the UK is not a Christian country in the way that Israel is a Jewish one, and certainly there is no demand from the UK for other countries to recognize the UK as a Christian country.

This is, of course, due to the fact that Christians, unlike Jews, are not a miniscule minority of the world's population, and the UK, unlike Israel was not specifically created in order to address the discrimination (to put it mildly) that Israel was created, in part, to address.

Historically, Jews have been a minority in every country in which they've lived (not so, of course, for Christians). In a great number of such cases from the 10th to the 20th century, that minority population has found itself the victim of severe discrimination, eventual expulsion, and, most recently, attempted extermination.

I would hope that an understanding of the conditions facing worldwide Jewry, especially around the time of the founding of the state of Israel, would help a person understand why they are so insistent on being recognized as a "Jewish State".

I've explained the reasons why it's not in my previous post...

I take it you disagree with my by now very strongly held belief that Israel should be a state for all it's citizens rather than being a Jewish state where citizens aren't valued equally and where discrimination against Arab Israelis is common. That's fine, but I find that trying to justify it by pointing to past persecution doesn't do anything for me, considering that to maintain being a Jewish state, it's the Palestinian people who have been displaced and persecuted.

btw, Israel appears to be selectively insistent on being recognised as a Jewish state. While they insist on that for the Palestinians, I can't recall that same demand being made of Jordan or Egypt in the past...

It is not a Christian state in the same unique way that Israel is a Jewish state. Nor is it a Christian state in the way that Mauritania is an Islamic state. However, I do feel that it is fair to say that it is a Christian state in the sense that I described.

As to your other "loaded" statement, I certainly heartily disagree with it and the assumptions contained within. It is bizarre to me that you automatically equate the idea of being a Jewish state with the notion of citizens "not being valued equally" and "discrimination of Arab Israelis" being common.

Of course, I support no such things, yet still very much believe that Israel has the right to define itself as a Jewish state.

You may want to look at the platform of the Meretz party in Israel to learn more about the compatibility of those values.

We've got the same hols here, and being an atheist I'd have major issues with them if they meant my country identified itself as a Christian state...

My statement wasn't loaded. It's very clear that Arab citizens of Israel aren't valued by the govt or even Jewish citizens as being as valuable as if they were Jewish, and of course discrimination against Arab Israelis is common. We see examples of it in this forum on a regular basis. It's that sort of ugliness that has led me to believe that I'd be a total hypocrite if I exempted Israel from my opposition to states that aren't states for all their citizens...

Have you got a link to the Meretz site? I'd find it hard to believe those values can be compatible at all...

While Meretz USA is not affiliated with the Meretz party in Israel, they do state that they share the party's philosophies and values.

Here are some relevant paragraphs:

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Israel is both a Jewish state and a state for all its citizens. Meretz USA supports the principle of separation of religion and state and believes that religion should be a matter of personal conscience. The Israeli government should therefore end discrimination aimed at the different streams of Judaism and abolish religious coercion. Meretz USA supports the extension of military conscription or alternative national service to the ultra-Orthodox community as well as non-Jewish citizens of Israel. Ultra-Orthodox schools should be held accountable to the public institutions that fund them.

BUILDING A JUST FUTURE

Meretz USA seeks to preserve and strengthen the democratic character of Israeli society as envisioned by its Zionist founders. This means ending discrimination against Israel's Arab minority without further delay, narrowing the social and economic gap that continues to separate Ashkenazi Jews from Middle Eastern and Ethiopian Jews, securing equal rights for lesbians and gays, and achieving full equality for Israeli women. (Fourty percent of the Meretz Knesset faction are women). We support Meretz - Democratic Israel in its efforts to create a Constitution for the State of Israel that will guarantee basic human and civil liberties for all who live and work in that country, and place them above political manipulation.

http://www.meretzusa.org/about

If you want to look at the actual Meretz party's website in Hebrew, it can be found here:

http://www.myparty.org.il/aspx/default.aspx

One is whether Israel should end discrimination against non-Jewish citizens. Yes, it should. The other is whether it should cease to be a homeland for Jews, and become a binational state or a predominantly Arab/Muslim state, by assimilation with or conquest by Palestinians.

Peaceful assimilation is not a possibility at this stage; violent conquest by either side is not to be desired; neither is long-term civil war, which is perhaps the most likely outcome of an attempt at a binational state at this stage.

I think its clear that they aren't compatible. Its also clear that the only confusion is because Israel's advocates try to present it as a Western-style republic when it is clearly an ethnocracy.

The country I would compare Israel to in that sense is Armenia. Armenia is superficially a democracy, however its policies are essentially aimed at maintaining the ethnic supremacy of Armenians and marginalising the ethnic Azeri minority as much as possible. To date it has done this very successfully and Armenia is now possibly the most monoethnic state in the world.

I can sympathise its reasons for doing so, as Armenians have had a rough time in the last 100 years. However, that doesnt escape the fact that in the Armenian quest for ethnic security, the rights of minority Azeris have been an inevitable casualty.

I think if the UK or Australia were to define themselves as Anglo-Saxon states and adopt policies aimed at ensuring a supermajority of Anglo-Saxon voters, you would be very hard pressed to claim that this didnt somehow impact on non-WASP residents of those countries.

As it happens, 40% of the Australian population is no longer of Anglo-Saxon descent. Within the next generation it is likely to exceed 50%. The difference between an ethnocracy and a functioning republic (which Australia effectively is, notwithstanding that it has a symbolic monarchy) is that that event will pass without incident, whereas in Israel it would be greeted with mass hysteria.

French is a nationality because there is a French state of which people can be citizens. French is also a nation, meaning a cultural identity. If you want to use another term for it, that's fine. I'm not sure it's the same as ethnicity, but we could try using that.

By you, self-determination means having the right to dominate.

Your mindset could justify the "Trail of Tears" on the grounds that Andrew Jackson was exercising the right to self-determination for Scots-Irish immigrants to the United States. In fact, the rhetoric that was used in this country to justify "Manifest Destiny" is very similar to the rhetoric the settlers use.

It embarrasses me as an American that we've taught other nations to act like that.

It should embarrass you that the nationalist movement you back has lowered itself to acting like that.

Self-determination was never meant to be the right to crush others.

First of all, self determination does not mean the right to trample minorities. But every state has a national culture. What's wrong with that? Your argument about the trail of tears is so far off, that it's ludicrous.

In the modern sense, "nation" means a state - a legal and georaphical entity. The Jews are not a nation in this sense.

The use of the word "nation" to mean "an ethnic or cultural group" - such as the Jews - is semi-archaic, and - crucially - very little to do with being a nation in the above sense.

Self determination can only work on geographical, not ethnic lines. "The people who live in France" have a right to self-determination; "The set of people of French ethnic origin" emphatically do not.

The Israelis have a right (by now) to an Israeli state. The Jews have no right whatsoever to a Jewish state; that's an inherently racist and wicked idea.

Self determination does have to work within a geographic area, that's true. But there's still a French majority in the area known as France. That's why they speak French and not Swahili. There's nothing at all racist about that, nor is there anything at all racist about the Jews having a Jewish state.

Are Jews welcome to come back and reclaim their homes that were stolen from them?

Of course not, but you aren't terribly upset about that, are you?

Why can Muslims have their racist states, and Jews can't have their own state (with 1.5 million Arab Muslims already living there; there are no Arab states with anywhere near that many Jews, as they have all been expelled).

which is what the piece of crap that calls itself Zionism is today. From an ideal for a land in which Jews could live in peace to present-day apartheid, what a come down!

Or of people who are progressive, and who have always been passionate opponents of antisemitism(and remain so)but have simply come to the conclusion that the State of Israel is a reactionary enterprise that inflicts injustice on people who were not the historic enemies of the world's Jewish communities or of Judaism as a religion?

(I'm not actually an antizionist, before you ask. I'm on the left wing of the "two-state solution" faction, and don't think a single state would work at present. But my observation is that it's deeply unfair to call the majority of people who oppose Zionism "antisemites" or to assume that they hate Jews as people or the Jewish religion. They don't. They just don't accept that this particular nationalist movement is automatically worthier than any other).

The British Jewish songwriter Leon Rosselson, who as a young man was a member of the Hashomer Hatzair Zionist youth group, is now an non-Zionist. He wrote a song about how he connects his non-Zionism to his Jewish identity. I'll quote the chorus of it here:

"It's not a nation, not a religion,
This Jewish spirit is still unbroken.
It's like the candle that breaks the darkness,
It's like the song that shatters the silence.
It's like the fool that laughs at the dragon,
It's like the spark that signals rebellion;
It's like the dance that circles, unending".

It's incredibly arrogant to imply that the only way a person can be a Jew, or a friend of the world's Jewish communities, is to be a supporter of the nationalist movement that claims to represent them, or to exempt the state that claims to represent them from normal accountability for its actions. Judiasm existed for milennia before political Zionism emerged, and will survive and flourish just as well if political Zionism were to be replaced by a compromise Jewish-Arab democratic state as it would were people on the right to go on insisting that land theft and the dispossession of other peoples, and the priveleging of one people over another are necessary to preserve it.

The best way to protect and defend the world's Jewish communities, as is the case with the best way to make the world safer for everybody is to work for a world free of injustice, not focus on who controls beachfront properties on the Jordan.
Working globally for justice, for equality, for peace and against exploitation is not easy, but it is bound to be less futile than simply accepting the status quo and shouting demands at people on the other side of a wall.

They tend to fall into two groups: some ultra-Orthodox Jews, whose interpretation of their religion is that the State of Israel should not have been established before the coming the Messiah (I have a few relatives like that in Israel), and some left-wing anti-nationalists, who oppose all forms of nationalism including Zionism. I actually have quite a bit of sympathy in principle for the latter - I just think that right now nationalism is often the only alternative to two worse things: imperialism and tribalism. And that a 'compromise Jewish-Arab democratic state' might be a good thing if it were possible, but it is just not possible at this time.

As regards the reasons why anti-Zionism is often equated with antisemitism - I think that one important reason is that real antisemites often cloak their hostility to Jews under the cover of anti-Zionism. It is nowadays fortunately socially unacceptable in many circles to say that one hates Jews, so 'Zionists' becomes a code-word. Therefore critics of Zionism for other reasons can get tarred with the same brush.

have used "Zionism" as a code phrase for "Jews". But that is a use of the phrase that is dying out.

Obviously, someone who uses the term "ZOG" is actually just a plain old antisemite.

And, if you look at history, a lot of influential gentiles who BACKED Zionism were themselves raving antisemites. Arthur Balfour and virtually everyone else in British politics in the first two decades of the 20th century who backed the Zionist project at that time fit into that category. Harry Truman may have as well, although he was more ambiguous on the subject. Political figures like that wanted the creation of a Jewish state because they wanted Jews to leave their states. And there was always a tradeoff with figures like that that, in exchange for supporting what became Israel, they expected the Jewish communities that remained in the UK and the U.S. to basically give domestic antisemitism a pass.

Because this conflict is not now, and never was, about the 1967 occupation.

That is just a smokescreen for the hatred of the REAL occupation, which is the state of Israel itself.

Remember that most Palestinians consider all of Israel to be occupied territory and they don't want to stop violent resistance until it is all "liberated".

Giving up settlements won't bring peace, just as it didn't in Gaza.

Arabs will never accept a Jewish state.

They have stated it time and again, although people outside of the situation seem to think they know more.

People need to remember this is not a war about land. Israel is 8,000 square kilometers, that size of New Jersey. The size of Wales. The Zionists did not plan for a war with the Arabs. Palestine was a desert, nomadic in nature. The Jews ere 90% literate, fleeing the massive pogroms in Russia (300,000 Jews killed in the Russian Civil War), fleeing persecution in Europe.

Zionists also considered what is now Uganda as a potential state, so those who say Zionism is inherently designed to discriminate against ethnic minorities (namely Arabs) is a load of crap.

The British promised the Jews a piece of land that was east and west of the Jordan River. Following the massive anti-Zionist massacres and attacks, Palestine riots, Arab pogroms in Libya, etc....Britain decided to divide the Jewish homeland to appease the violent anti-Zionist movement. The Palestinians were given 80% of Palestine and renamed the land Transjordan, which is now simply known as Jordan.

After the British left, the UN decided to divide the land proportional to population (in fact, the Jews got more land proportional to population.) The Jews agreed to the partition reluctantly. They had little to bargain with, but were very concerned their state would have a lasting future if they were surrounded by so many rejectionists. The Arabs predictably declared war and the new state of Israel fought them back.

Remember - the Arabs occupied Samaria and Gaza first. For 20 years, not once did they grant the Palestinians a state.

The desert tribe's agenda has always been rejection. No recognition, no acceptance, etc. Even until the 80s, the most liberal Palestinian movement said its goal was to turn Israel into an Arab state where Jews were the minority. A dhimmi-style civilization reminiscent of the Ottoman Empire.

Israel's agenda, from my experience, is solely about Israel. It does not care about communism or oil. It does not want to spread Judaism to every corner of the Earth. It will not drive airplanes into buildings, blow up British airplanes, or declare war on the West. Nor will it export terrorism to the USA, Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

The logic from the progessives is that if Israel will compromise, be nicer, the Arabs will give in.

Not true. The Arab states do not care. They would not benefit from a sovereign Palestinian state. If their livelihood were to become concrete, who could they couch all their problems on? No Zionist lobby to scapegoat.

Don't believe me? Well, Israel and the USA have given more money to the Palestinians than all the Arab and Muslim states combined. Saudi Arabia has spent more money buying out the universities than on the Palestinians. Why is this?

Of course, Iran has no problem pouring billions into Hamas and Hezbollah - but that's okay, Israel should make peace.

No country on Earth has ever given up land for peace. Look at the USA. It's entire existence is predicated on the complete extermination of North America's indigenous population. Thousands killed in offensive settler wars, generations ruined and stuck to live on reservations. Most of the West seized in offensive wars with Mexico.

Britain continues to retain colonies it actively stole during conquests, and yet it demands the Jews to stop building movie theaters, coffee shops, and gardens in Samaria? Those evil settlements, they r holding up the peace process!!

You might think the Palestinians want peace, but I've seen what they do. I was in Lebanon when they torched my churches and raped people. The torture, shoving grenades in people's bodies. Recruiting teens to become fighters, total destruction.

The Palestinians manufacture crisis and then we have problems in Israel because the Jews are concerned about our "loyalty." I mean, if England entire existence wad rooted in never-ending wars by Jewish despots from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, etc...you think there would be a level of tension between English Jews and ordinary citizens?

When this is over and the Palestinians stop pretending to represent the Arab struggle then maybe Israel will be finally unified. Seeing East Jerusalem being held hostage by Israel because they are concerned the Arabs will use it for political warfare is depressing.

According to a survey, 90% of all Arab citizens of Israel would not leave Israel if a Palestinian state were to be created! I love my country and I hate the enemy.

And I think I've seen that piece printed word-for-word somewhere else.

I'm a bit sad that they were banned so quickly, though. I was having heaps of fun with them! :)

They were annoying but nothing they posted actually violated DU rules.

affiliation ie Israeli Arab or Mizrahi Jew and got crickets which I took as an answer of sorts

n/t.

or who expressed right-wing views in another forum. Either could get you TS'd.

I may be wrong but I doubt that he was an Arab or even an Israeli. For one thing, if he was a pro-Israel Israeli citizen, whatever his ethnic background, why would he leave for America 'because of the conflict' as he stated at one point?

I wish you'd stop making up stuff about the Palestinian people that just aren't true. It's every bit as creepy as someon who was making up complete bullshit about the Israeli population and repeating it over and over again....

I saw the new poster who claims they're an Arab in Israel talking about demographics and how a Jewish majority must be maintained. I'm really uncomfortable with any country having what amounts to an obsession where the value of its citizens are based on what ethnicity they are and worrying about whether one group outbreeds another. Why can't Israel be a state for Israelis, the way Australia's a state for Australians?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not that what you popped up with has anything to do with what you were replying to. The question I asked was why can't Israel be a state for all its citizens, regardless of ethnicity, and instead of even trying to answer the question, you go off on some unrelated tangent which displays a staggering double standard, as you always complain about Jews being forced to leave countries, yet totally support it when it came to the Zionists forcing Palestinians to leave what was to become Israel....

I'll repeat again what I said in my earlier post. I'm opposed to the whole concept of a state being defined as anything other than as a state for its citizens, and that applies to Jewish, Muslim or Christian ones....

btw, the insults are pretty stupid and immature. Is there a need to behave like that?

If you mean that Israel should be a state where all its citizens have their civil rights protected, I would argue that Israel is that state already, albeit imperfect (and every such state is imperfect). If you mean that Israel should be a state in which every citizen's ethnic culture is equally protected and promoted by the state, then the response is that there is no such state, nor can there ever be such a state.

In the second sense, Australia is not a state for all Australians. Is the Aboriginal language an official language of Australia? Do the courts settle disputes according to tribal law? The only reason Australia is the country it is, is because white Australians are the great majority of its citizens. There is an Australian national culture that predominates, just as there is a French culture in France, and an American culture in the United States. The war between Israel and the Arabs is about the Arab desire to destroy the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, and to substitute and Arab state in its place. Why should the Jews accept that?

does not exist. There were 500 Aboriginal languages, and today only 2 of them - Walpiri and Pitjanjatjara - have over 1000 speakers. Roughly 90% of indigenous people in Australia are not proficient in an indigenous language.

There is an Australian national culture that predominates

True. However, that national culture is by no means monolithically Anglo-Saxon in basis.

The only reason Australia is the country it is, is because white Australians are the great majority of its citizens.

False. Many countries from Nigeria to New Guinea to Jamaica have retained the English language and the common law. If every person of English descent in Australia dropped dead tomorrow, no doubt the remaining citizens would probably still retain the English language.

The war between Israel and the Arabs is about the Arab desire to destroy the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, and to substitute and Arab state in its place. Why should the Jews accept that?

No.

Israel is a country with a 20% Arab population. It is therefore, in reality, a state of Jews and Arabs. The Israeli Arabs merely ask that it be recognised as such.

What is your problem, specifically, with recognising that Israel is a state of Jews and Arabs?

however, that doesn't change my point at all. The fact is that Australia (and every other country) has a majority culture that animates the state. In France, its French culture. In Italy, it's Italian. In Israel it's Jewish.

By me>The war between Israel and the Arabs is about the Arab desire to destroy the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, and to substitute and Arab state in its place. Why should the Jews accept that?

By you>No.

You're in denial if you really don't understand the basic nature of the war.

Israel is a country with a 20% Arab population. True. It is therefore, in reality, a state of Jews and Arabs. False. It is a Jewish state with an Arab minority. The Israeli Arabs merely ask that it be recognized as such. Utterly and totally false, to the point where I have no idea where you get this from. The Palestinian position includes a demand for the right of return of Arab refugees to Israel, which would automatically make it an Arab state with a Jewish minority. More to the point, the initial Arab war against Israel had everything to do with denying the Jews their own state.

What is your problem, specifically, with recognizing that Israel is a state of Jews and Arabs? I have no problem at all with saying that there are Arab citizens of Israel. but calling it a state of Jews and Arabs is not incompatible with it also being a Jewish state with both Jews and Arabs living in it. the Jewish national culture of Israel is something valuable that deserves to be preserved, just as the French nature of France or the the American nature of the United States (even though both countries have significant minorities). Why do you have a problem with that?

the Jewish national culture of Israel is something valuable that deserves to be preserved, just as the French nature of France or the the American nature of the United States (even though both countries have significant minorities). Why do you have a problem with that?

The rather obvious distinction is that America goes to rather great lengths to inculcate a feeling in all its citizens that they are equally American, irrespective of their origins. Whereas defining a state as a Jewish state obviously serves to exclude those citizens that are not Jewish.

Furthermore, France is a French state, but not a Gallic state. America is an American state, but not a WASP state. I think its a fairly easy idea to grasp.

False. It is a Jewish state with an Arab minority.

Then it is not a functional republic, but rather an ethnocracy. The word "republic" comes from res publica, ie "the public thing" - a state of all its citizens equally.

You can call Israel whatever you like, but sticking a feather duster up a cat's arse doesn't make it a squirrel.

the Jewish national culture of Israel is something valuable that deserves to be preserved, just as the French nature of France or the the American nature of the United States (even though both countries have significant minorities). Why do you have a problem with that?

The rather obvious distinction is that America goes to rather great lengths to inculcate a feeling in all its citizens that they are equally American, irrespective of their origins. Whereas defining a state as a Jewish state obviously serves to exclude those citizens that are not Jewish.

The reason that this is a false distinction is that the nationhood of the United States (American) is not based on ethnicity, but is defined entirely by a set of ideas. In that way the United States is different from virtually all other states (perhaps all). Despite the fact that there are many ethnicities and races in the American population, there is only one national culture. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. The US forged not only an entirely new national identity, but a different way of looking at national identity. And we generally don't change that culture for new immigrants. By the way, do you like the US? Do you want the world to be just like the US? As an American who loves his country, I don't want the rest of the world to be just like us. The diversity of ethnic states is good for the health of humanity just as genetic diversity is necessary. So the question is, why should Israel, or any other country, be like the US? You complain about Israel being an ethnic state, but that's what most states are. The US is a huge exception.

False. It is a Jewish state with an Arab minority.

Then it is not a functional republic, but rather an ethnocracy. The word "republic" comes from res publica, ie "the public thing" - a state of all its citizens equally.

Of course Israel is a functional republic. Arabs have civil rights and the right to participate in government. But Arabic isn't the national language, among other things. The national culture is still Jewish.

The reason that this is a false distinction is that the nationhood of the United States (American) is not based on ethnicity, but is defined entirely by a set of ideas. In that way the United States is different from virtually all other states (perhaps all).

From the Australian national anthem:-

"For those who've come beyond the seas
we've boundless plains to share
In history's page, let every stage
Advance Australia Fair"

and from a widely regarded alternative anthem:-

"We are one
but we are many
and from all the lands on Earth we come
We share a dream
and sing with one voice
I am
You are
We are Australian"

These kinds of sentiments are very common in Western countries these days. Robin Smith, for example, said that the British national dish was Chicken Tikka Masala. The official word for it is multiculturalism, which is government policy in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.

The essential difference that you nearly hit on was not between the United States and the rest of the world. The difference is rather between the WASPs, who no longer fear miscegenation because they have converted the rest of their world to their culture, and Jews, which being an endogamous sect, fear miscegenation above all else. And here's where Israel comes into its own - it hasn't been very good at giving Jews security (quite the opposite) but its been highly effective at avoiding any further dilution of the stock, at a time when the acid bath of liberalism has been slowly lapping away at the hull, to the tune of a 52% intermarriage rate each year.

The middle East is full of endogamous sects - the Druze, Yazidis, Manicheans, Parsees, Armenians, Alawis etc etc. Even the Christian groups, the Maronites, Copts, Assyrians, Chaldeans etc are endogamous. Jews are hardly remarkable in that regard.

However, truly Republican cultures are less common. The Romans were moderately successful in creating a Republican culture that transcended ethnic boundaries. The West has been much more so. Even Israel likes to portray itself as a country of respectable faux-WASPs (suit-wearing, English speaking, golf playing, glass cubicle office tower dwelling gray cardigan wearers) as much as a nation of Jews.

But to state it in very concise terms:-

Israel is not a nation of Arabs (your words).

Arabs comprise 20% of its population.

Therefore, Israel is not a country of its public.

Therefore, Israel is not res publica.

Therefore, Israel is not a republic.

That the world ignore the injustice done by the occupation, that the world pretend that Palestinians have no grievances and no reason whatsoever to be resisting the IDF and what it's doing, and that the world share the Likudnik delusion that the Israeli government bears no responsibility for anything.

Why should the world feel obligated to indulge the Israeli government in its arrogant delusions, especially when those delusions and when the arrogance the Israeli government displays do nothing whatsoever to protect Israeli civilians?

Why can't the Israeli right accept that the status quo doesn't WORK?

that is all!

"Occupation" to a Palestinian means all of Israel from '48 on. Only western liberals speaking for the Palestinians somehow think the '67 lines could be acceptable and would be the end of the occupation.

Israel has the right to exist within her 1948 borders. The displaced Palestinians have the right to be compensated or can return. Palestinian state has the right to exist in present day East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, Gaza. The displaced Jewish settlers have the right to be compensated or can remain.

I would use the word 'hardliners' for the group you mention.

Otherwise, strongly agree.

I mean, what prevents war is a much more interesting question in my opinion. Who admits to wanting to prevent peace?