SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (102168)6/20/2003 11:43:18 AM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 281500
 
Actually, Zionism is mostly a secular movement. For a long time, Orthodox Jews were hostile, because it was impious to plan to rebuild the Holy Land without the Messiah. There is now one large party which is Orthodox and Zionist, the National Religious Party, but even Likud is officially secular. Even in Israel, most Jews are either secular or semi- observant, much like members of Conservative congregations in the States. The Orthodox monopoly of religion in Israel, in terms of marriage rules, schuls, and so forth, is a result of the multi- party system of the Knesset, which gives unusual power to small parties in the building of coalitions. Non- Zionist or even anti- Zionist religious parties exist, and take advantage of the rivalry between the major parties to get portfolios in the cabinet that give them inordinate cultural influence.

Thus, there is no real reason why Israel need be committed to the restoration of the Biblical boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. Even Likud long ago gave up the aspiration to annex the occupied territories, and is largely motivated by security concerns. It will never repatriate those in the refugee camps, or at least the bulk of them, of course, but it may ease the terms under which compensation may be claimed. It will not give up Jerusalem, per se, but it may allow autonomous areas, or international administration of the non- Jewish holy places. It will get rid of most of the settlements, with the possible exception of some in the area of Jerusalem. For the rest, if the Palestinians would come down hard on terrorists, they could have their own state........



To: michael97123 who wrote (102168)6/20/2003 11:51:13 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Michael, I don't argue for a return to pre-1947 borders. I do think it would have been better for the Jews and the Arabs to have resolved the situation incrementally over time using the power of the purse and the power of persuasion rather than by a stroke of the pen, backed up by military might.

Jews and Arabs lived side-by-side in the region for hundreds of years, more or less peaceably, just as they lived in many other countries in the Middle East.

How many Jews in Israel are there because they were expelled from elsewhere? Not just from the Middle East but from Russia and other places where Jews are hated? Including Eastern Europe after the Holocaust - sure, it was easier to make the Arabs give up their land than let the Jews live where they were born, or take them in as refugees.

I would rather every Jewish refugee came to America. This is the new Promised Land.

If God wants the Jews to move to Israel, He wouldn't make it so hard on them.