I really don't have much time to comment but a couple of quickies...

a)  I wouldn't call Israeli Arabs second class citizens.  Assuming one can de-integerize class, I would put them about 1.3-1.5.

b)  One of the "traditional" newscast stories here on Yom Ha'atzma'ut (Israel Independence Day) is a story on how Israeli Arabs either ignored the day or demonstrate against in and the State, as a run (or re-run) up to the "Naqba" (disaster) day, 14 May (the civil date in 1948 when Israel declared independence).  Last year (2007) the news crews were visiting some parks in the North of the country looking for Israelis (read Jews) celebrating Yom Ha'atzma'ut with the now traditional "Mangal" (barbecue), when they came across some Israeli Arab families making a Mangal.  The reporter asked them what they were doing, & they replied enjoying the holiday like other Israelis.  The reporter then asked them what about the "Naqba"?  They chuckled and waived their hands dismissively saying that they are Israeli citizens, are glad to be Israeli citizens and that the Israeli Arabs who insist on remembering and commemorating the "Naqba" should just get over it already.

c)  Since the ill-fated Camp David talks of the summer of 2000, (and especially since the Tabba talks of Dec.-Jan. 2001) there has been a quiet but steady exodus of so-called East Jerusalem Arabs into the central and Western neighborhoods of Jerusalem, especially to Ramat Eshkol, Giva Hatzorfatit (French Hill) and the Nachla'ot neighborhood next to the Mahane Yehuda market.

The reason is quiet simple.  These Arabs, even when they haven't taken Israeli citizenship (which they rarely do), are permanent residents and can move essentially anywhere in Israel.  When word got out about Clinton's plans to split Jerusalem where the post-67 Palestinian neighborhoods would be ceded to the nascent Palestinian state, under the fearless and enlightened leadership of Yasser Arafat (just ask Yossi Beilin and the J Street Jesters), these putative citizens of Palestine decided instead to vote with their feet.

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

I am sure, had you taken a similar poll in Georgia in 1950, of black people, they would not have reported a deisre to live in the Congo.  And if the Klan has used the results of such a poll to show how great the South really was for blacks, Jews certainly would have recognized the results for what they were.   The fact of the matter is if the US were declared a Christian nation, we put a cross on our flag, and declared the nation to be synonymous with a culture that exluded others, it would still probably be a pretty good place for Jews, but Jews would still rightly complain about it.  It is pretty easy for Israel to gloat about how great Israeli Arabs have it - there aren't that many and they don't have anything to fear from them.  If you really thought Arabs were so much better under Israeli rule so that facts on the ground would trump foolishness like Pan-Arabism, why not annex the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and grant citizenship to the inhabitants?  I am not doubting the spirit of the argument above, just that it is pretty incomplete.  Especially when Israel had most of its Arab residents citizenless and under direct military control for so long, this would seem rather like the US in the 1840's pointing to the free blacks of Boston as proof of how great the US was for blacks while ignoring those languishing under US control but without US rights.

I think the real question here is why in any modern state, any person should be treated, let alone legally defined, as a second class of citizen - not necessarily second class, note - just second class of.  Israel is far from being alone, or from being a particularly malignant expression as an exclusionary state in the Middle East - the Arab countries, and the 'stans are almost uniformly worse in this regard.  But the question is still relevant: can a state legitimately be Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian, or Arab, when it is rooted in and inhabited by, multi-religious and mutli-ethnic populations.  My answer would be no.  Either the constitution of a democratic state treats every legitimate citizen's creed and ethnicity as equally legitimate, or is it as odds with itself.

sdemuth said: " But the question is still relevant: can a state legitimately be Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian, or Arab, when it is rooted in and inhabited by, multi-religious and mutli-ethnic populations.  My answer would be no.  Either the constitution of a democratic state treats every legitimate citizen's creed and ethnicity as equally legitimate, or is it as odds with itself."

This, however, is to adopt the US Constitution as a standard. There are many countries that we normally think of as democracies that simply don't fit the model. E.g.,

The preamble of the Greek constitution begins with: "In the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity." Article 3 asserts that "the prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ”. The preamble to the Irish constitution begins: "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred." Norway's constitution decrees that "the Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State," that "more than half the number of the Members of the Council of State shall profess the official religion of the State," and even that "the inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in the same."  Closer to  home, the Constituion of Canada provides for state supported schools for certain religous groups but not others.

JPKatz, yep, great posts. Christians have a multitude of countries where Christianity is considered the state religion, and Muslims do as well, Buddhists in Asia are afforded special status. This is history and culture, but God forbid Jews live in their ancestral homeland where they are the majority. If Jews were Maronites you can be damn sure that no one would raise a fuss, except maybe the Muslims, but since they are indigenous it wouldn't be anywhere so vociferous.

And Jerb, millions of blacks moved north to escape segregation. Why would they move to the Congo? That is just ridiculous, how would they even know that is where their ancestors came from?

Palestinians have been offered time and again the means to have their own country if they simply recognize Israels right to exist. The people of Gaza and the West Bank have been for decades ill served by their "leaders" There is no reason why Gaza can't be prosperous and wealthy, like Singapore. That it is not is not Israels fault.

JPKatz: I am not adopting the US Constitution as a standard.  I'm asking a question posed in the abstract, and rather carefully worded as well.  The fact that there a lot of nations, more of less democratic that have thus far decided otherwise doesn't make the question less legitimate.   I think it is legitimate, and especially so when applied to a state such as the Israel, or the US, where the multi-ethnic and multi-creed nature of the population has been created by in-migration and displacement of indigenous populations.  Ultimately, I am convinced that good government demands the elimination of special status for specific ethic groups and creeds.

Blackton: "God forbid Jews live in their ancestral homeland where they are the majority"  - Only by the considerable perversion of history can Jews make a unique claim to an ancestral homeland in Palestine.  Many peoples have inhabited this place in the last 6000 years, and some, arguably, for at least as long as any extended occupation by the descendants of Abraham.  In particular, Arabic speaking adherents to the Koran have been in the place for some 13 centuries or so now.  Their claim to having a homeland there is at least as plausible as that of the Ashkenazim who founded Isrrael.

So, I return to my main point: a modern state is suspect to me, if it enshrines ethnicity and creed into its constitution, creating a second class of citizens in the process.  That applies to Israel, all the Arab states and 'stans, and Greece and Ireland as well.

Sdemuth: I took your question at face value; it is your answer that I am questioning. You said: "Either the constitution of a democratic state treats every legitimate citizen's creed and ethnicity as equally legitimate, or is it as odds with itself."  I think that this answers assumes a stipulation about democracy that  is at odds with one finds outside of the US.

Obviously, there are lots of countries that we do not regard as liberal democracies that give special status to certain creeds: the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Conference come to mind. My point, however, is that there are a great many countries that we normally count as liberal democracies that do so as well.  This is true, I believe, of Poland and Bulgaria, both members of the EU, of much of Scandinavia, which many regard as paradigms of liberal democracy, as well as Greece and Ireland. (I don't intend this as an exhaustive list.)

I am not sure what you mean when you say that a country "is it as odds with itself". It sounds as though you think that there is a contradiction of some sort, but I don't see why. There is nothing unusual about a nation whose history and culture strongly connect it to a particular religion. This may be true in democratic countries as well as non-democratic countries. Nor do I see any contradiction if this connection figures in the country's constituion and national symbols.  (Perhaps you would prefer not to live in such a country, but that is a different matter.)

I agree, of course, that no citizen in a democracy should be defined as a second class citizen. But it is almost inevitable that identifiable minorities, even in democracies, will feel this way, regardless of what a country's constitution says. Jews in the US and Canada--even in the US and Canada-- may well have felt like second class citizens during the 1930s. Or to take a striking contemporary example: aboriginal peoples in the US and Canada frequently complain (with considerable justice, in my opinion) that they are treated as second-class citizens. I have not lived in an Arab communitiy in Israel or in an aboriginal community in the US or Canada. I am just guessing, but I would guess that Arabs in Israel are probably a lot better off.

At some point, it seems likely that Arab Israelis will demand more political rights -- the same sort of rights that Jewish minorities the world over have historically demanded: the right to marry whomever they want, live whereever they want, attend the best schools, etc..  It also seems likely that the Israeli Arab birthrate will continue to dramatically outstrip the non-religious Jewish birthrate.  Given both of these factors, how will Israeli Jews respond to Arab Israeli political demands?  How will American Jews respond?  

JPKatz: I understand liberal democracy to encompass an expansive notion of freedom of conscience, belief and expression.  I understand all of these things to be threatened by most (and certainly by each of the three Abrahamic monotheistic) religions.  That is, these religions have at their core a "you must believe thusly" theology.  Notwithstanding many good-hearted Jews, Christians and Muslims who practice great tolerance, the creeds themselves pose a gateway test of conscience and belief, and if you bind your national identity to them, you inherently diminish freedom of conscience. Belief in one system having been endorsed, all others are by implication, deprecated.

I thus cannot square freedom of conscience with government endorsement of a particular creed that contains those sorts of belief imperatives.  If you put both in the same constitution, written or otherwise, the foundation of the government is at odds with itself.  I could not so reconcile the US Constitutions 1st Amendment with any formal claim that we are a "Christian Nation;" and I cannot square an Israel claim to be a liberal democracy with a clear claim to a Jewish Nation.  Much as I admire some things about the other nations you mention, I consider them to be flawed as well, to the degree they act in any sense on declarations of creed for their citizens.  Ditto nations which claim to be officially atheist.

As for the Arabs in Israel and Native Americans in this country: I've lived near and been on some of our reservations, and I certainly hope that Arab Israeli citizens are treated better then we have historically treated the remnant indigenous people of North America.  It was, and continues to be, a disgrace to our nation's espoused beliefs, and basic human rights.  But I would also say that a more fair comparison would be between, say, the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota, and the Gaza strip, and here, I'd say the comparison shows neither country in a favorable light.

"At some point, it seems likely that Arab Israelis will demand more political rights -- the same sort of rights that Jewish minorities the world over have historically demanded: the right to marry whomever they want, live whereever they want, attend the best schools, etc.."

They do have these rights.  By way of example, if you hang out in the library at the Technion (Israel's MIT) you will hear plenty of Arabic.  Go visit the Hadassah-Hebrew U. Medical School complex and you will see many medical, dental & nursing students in wearing headscarves & Islamic dress (that's more than you can say for France or Turkey).

Although Jewish-Arab marriages are relatively unusual they do occur although very very rarely work out (cultural differences are just too great).

Shall I go on?  During the deep dark days of the Oslo Accords war, when buses were blowing up left and right in J'lem, there were any number of news stories on how Israeli Arab medical staff (including some very senior physicians) at Hadassah & Sha'arei Tzedek hospitals who worked feverishly to save the lives of their "brothers'" (and occasional "sisters'") victims.

I am not saying Israel is perfect.  **NO** country is, and to demand that Israel be perfect more meet standards of "morality" (often impossible or suicidal standards) not demanded of others as a condition of its legitimacy is at best moral narcissism and at worst thinly disguised anti-Semitism.

Indeed Israeli Arabs are treated far better and than Jews ever were (or are) in any Arab country.

I have more to say on this but it is past my bedtime (Israel Summer Time).

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

sdemuth  “I think the real question here is why in any modern state, any person should be treated, let alone legally defined, as a second class of citizen - not necessarily second class, note - just second class of.  Israel is far from being alone, or from being a particularly malignant expression as an exclusionary state in the Middle East - the Arab countries, and the 'stans are almost uniformly worse in this regard.  But the question is still relevant: can a state legitimately be Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian, or Arab, when it is rooted in and inhabited by, multi-religious and mutli-ethnic populations.  My answer would be no….”

This is not the real question, and even if it were you are confusing issues here.

Israel is a Jewish State but Jewish in context doesn’t refer to Judaism as a religion. In fact the question of how religious a secular State like Israel should be is a topic of debate there.

Israel, then is a secular State. To compare it to “Christian” or Muslim or Buddhist States is ridiculous. (I would also say that if the Arab countries were secular Arab countries rather than Muslims ones then the possibility of change in those societies too would be a lot easier to bring about.

Moreover, Israel since its founding has been at war with it’s Arab neighbors as well as the Arab Palestinians who have been trying to destroy the country and turn it into an Arab majority State with all that that would mean.

The fact that Israeli Arabs have as much civil liberties as they do even in the midst of  life and death conflict in which the country is entangled speaks very well of Israel.

I know of other country that would guarantee the rights of a minority with ties to people who are trying to destroy it.

It is possible for a country to be an ethnic country and treat its minority as equals. Of course, if the minority sets out to challenge the rule of majority and wants to destroy the country then conflict will inevitably ensue. The question of minority rights is a complex one that posters such a sdemuth don’t seem to understand.

It involves not issues of rights of individuals, those issues are relatively easy to resolve.

Minority rights though may involve issues of language, religion, culture, and history.

These are not the easy to resolve. We in the US will be facing challenges from minorities which will a lot more difficult to deal with than those involving “race” or skin color. The differences between Blacks and Whites in the US are or have been pretty superficial. They both share a culture a language and until recently even a religion.

In any case, let’s remember also that most European countries are ruled by single ethnic groups. Whatever the future may hold for say France it is still a majority French speaking society.

This too may change in the not too distant future.

Multi culturalism may work to a degree among peoples who share a linguistic, religious and linguistic heritage but when a country is trying to accommodate people with whom it shares non of these features than history shows (Balkans anyone) societies tend to fragment and fall into civil conflict.

An example of multiculturalism, or is it of a lack of minority rights?

"A Caledonian caliphate

www.spectator.co.uk/.../a-caledonian-caliphate.thtml

jacksondyer: I think you are correct that Israel is more of ethnic state than a creedal state, and clearly my argument was made in terms of the latter.   Mea culpa.

However, switching the argument to be one about ethnicity, doesn't change my conclusion even if it changes some of the argument.  In fact, ithe conclusion becomes more true in my mind.  One can at least argue that one's confession or creed is a matter of choice, but ethnicity generally is not.  I believe choice of creed is of necessity respected in a liberal democracy, as I have argued, but for a matter such as ethnicity, which is not a matter of choice, a state is in my judgment even more compelled to take no sides.  In particular, for a state which is manifestly multi-ethnic to declare itself be a of a particular ethnicity,unambiguously denigrates other ethnicities in that state.

This may be a minor problem if you are, say, Norway, and you admit a limit number of non-Nordic immigrants under the expectation that they assimilate.  You may succeed in defining Norwegian-ness by language, and habit, and not by race or origin (although, that is pretty much what France says it wants with its immigrants, and it is not working well at all).  But it is a much different problem in a state where two or more ethnically distinct populations exist with legitimate historical and political roots, and one by virtue of majority, or monopoly of power, declares itself to be the ethnicity of the state.

Now, I happen to agree with you and the other posters that Israel's treatment of it's Arab minority is not particularly malignant, and may be even exemplary under the circumstances.   But does the grandchild of a kibbutzim really have more of a right to a state in Palestine that declares itself to be his or hers, than does a Arab Israeli whose grandparents owned land there 100 years ago?  How about an immigrant Ashkenazi from Kiev compared to an Arab whose family has been in Palestine for 15 generations?  To me, the very idea that states so define themselves is insidious, in Jewish Israel vis-a-vis Arabs, inf French France vis-a-vis their Algerian and Tunisian populations, and in the US or any other modern state that supposes an allegiance to basic human rights.  (And for all those other states, who do not even bother to attempt to live out such an allegiance - they're simply wrong, and swimming against what I firmly hope is the tide of history).

Israel has a very special problem of course: it has both created itself in a place where it is violently unwelcome, and in a form that is a contradiction to principles to which its own citizens - at least those I have known - would otherwise largely subscribe.  This lead to my original question: "why in any modern state, any person should be treated, let alone legally defined, as a second class of citizen - not necessarily second class, note - just second class of?"  Israel may answer, "because otherwise we would cease to exist" and be perfectly correct inf a facutal sense in doing so, but that hardly changes the contradiction inherent in declaring a large fraction of your citizens as a second class of Israeli.

"However, switching the argument to be one about ethnicity, doesn't change my conclusion even if it changes some of the argument." sdemuth

You are changing the premises in order to fit your pre-arrived at conclusions that Israel is an illegitimate State.

This is what you believe and no matter how many times someone will challenge your evidence you will still not change your mind.

In any case, you are wrong about your view that Jews have more of a right by law than the Arabs within its borders. Whatever discrimination exists is a function of the conflict the State has been engaged in for the last 60 years and longer if you count the pre State conflicts.

In any case the Palestinians can have their own State if they choose to make peace. In addition they already have a State in Jordan.

No, Israel is not the US but neither is France or Debmark were there is plenty of ethnic strife between Arabs and the native Europeans.

I also don't see the US giving equal rights to the millions of HIspanics who have come here to work.

Let's face it, ethnic strife is a world wide problem and the fact that you chose to concentrate on Israel tells me something about your anti-Israel hostility.

"This lead to my original question: "why in any modern state, any person should be treated, let alone legally defined, as a second class of citizen - not necessarily second class, note - just second class of?"  Israel may answer, "because otherwise we would cease to exist" and be perfectly correct inf a facutal sense in doing so, but that hardly changes the contradiction inherent in declaring a large fraction of your citizens as a second class of Israeli." sdemuth

This is patently false: no law in Israel has declared non Jews second class citizens. In fact the opposite is the case.

The Israeli declaration of independence states that all the residents in the country have equal rights under the law.

In Israel Arabs serve in high positions at all levels of government (except the army for obvious reasons) and this includes Parliament and the Supreme Court). Show me one Arab State with a Jewish Supreme Court justice?

Here is a video presentation of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands:

cojs.org/.../libya.html

"You are changing the premises in order to fit your pre-arrived at conclusions that Israel is an illegitimate State.

This is what you believe and no matter how many times someone will challenge your evidence you will still not change your mind.." jacksondyer

I'm not changing the premis at all. I'm responding to the your pointing out that I started with a statement that encompassed both creed and ethinicity, and then argued the case on the basis of creed, when in fact being Jewish in Israel was more a matter of ethnicity.

I don't believe Israel is an illegitimate state, and I've never said I did.  I have in the past said that I consider the founding of Israel to have been historical problematical, but I've always been clear that Israel is today a recognized nation, that deserves respect for its territorial integrity.  I also consider the United States to a legitimate state built on a legacy of stolen land.   These are not contradictory concepts.

I am talking about Israel in these posts because the original post from Peretz was about Israel. I broadened the question explicity in my first paragraph, because my question is not about Israel, but about any modern state.

I agree that no law makes Arabs second class citizens in Israel, and the constitution certainly can't, there being no written constitution in sense we have one in the the US.  But Israel is a self-consciously and self-declared Jewish nation - a point made explicit by Sharon's publicly worrying aloud that the ascendancy of a non-Jewish majority could force the country to choose between being a Jewish state and being a democracy.  

Finally, I agree that there are ethnic minority and majority issues in many nations, not least in Europe and the US - which again, is precisely why I broadened the question to ask "why in any modern state ...."

So let's get this straight: I believe that Israel is a state, and is legitimate in the same sense any other state is, that it has a right to defend itself and its institutions.  I am asking a question about how a perforce multi-ethnic state should define itself, and I intend that the same standard be applied to every multi-ethnic state.  I conclude that it should not specifically identify itself with any particular creed or ethnicity, through law or convention.  If you wish to disagree with what I say, by all means do so, but I think that can be done without resort to accusing me of dishonesty or intransigence.

"I have in the past said that I consider the founding of Israel to have been historical problematical, but I've always been clear that Israel is today a recognized nation, that deserves respect for its territorial integrity.  I also consider the United States to a legitimate state built on a legacy of stolen land.   These are not contradictory concepts."

sdemuth

What exactly does the weasel phrase "historical problematical" mean?

There are a whole host of modern States from Poland to Pakistan and modern Turkey as well as many others which were founded in the 20th and which had displaced millions of people. Are they too historical problematical?

Most countries at one time of their history had massacred and exiled minority populations or forced them to assimilate.

At what point does the term "historical problematical" cease being so and becomes the norm.

Finally, you know damn well that calling Israel's founding "problematical" however you qualify it is different from calling the US or some other country "problematical." No other country has been threatened with extinction and no other country has to fight for its survival on a daily basis.

Historically problematic means to me that what happened would not be acceptable on moral and legal grounds if we proposed to do the same thing again, in another place.  There is nothing weasel about it.  What was done in North America in the 16h through 19th centuries, and what was done in Palestine in the first half of the 20th is something most nations  would not  want to promote as the norm, and no people would want done to themselves. - people were violently displaced because someone else wanted their land.

But it is done, the states now exist, are recognized by the world generally, and function as legitimate national entities.  That doesn't make history go away, it just makes it isettled as a matter fact an law.

The salient difference between Israel and the US (or Poland/Germany, or Russia/Finland) is that the populations affected in the latter cases have largely accepted the results (hard to argue when you're dead, as is the case with most Native Americans), but in Israel the result is accepted by only one side.  The same may happen between Serbia and Kosovo, or the Serbs may accept the loss of Kosovo and move on.  The same may happen between Tibet and China, or Tibet may continue to not accept their absorption by China (Tibet, by the way, has suffered the very real likelihood of the extinction of their national identity for nearly as long as Israel, your conviction that Israel is uniquely threatened, notwithstanding).

"What was done in North America in the 16h through 19th centuries, and what was done in Palestine in the first half of the 20th is something most nations  would not  want to promote as the norm, and no people would want done to themselves. - people were violently displaced because someone else wanted their land." sdemuth

This is true of most nations.

Would you want to see a Pakistan created if it meant the death of millions of people?

It strikes me, your moral selectiveness notwithstanding that the creation of Israel resulted in the least number of casualties of most modern nation States.

The only reason you bring up Israel is because it is in the middle of an ongoing conflict.  

The immorality of the conflict is that the Arabs (even as they killed each other in internecine wars) with the help of the UN have not absorbed the Arab refugees the way the other countries have. This doesn’t make Israel morally questionably it makes those who fight against it morally questionable.

In any case, the circumstance of the birth of nations is unique. No two countries will experience the same circumstances in its creation the idea of a norm is illusory.

"The only reason you bring up Israel is because it is in the middle of an ongoing conflict."

I was responding to a post by Marty Peretz about Arabs in Israel.  Making my point by talking first about Serbia and Kosovo would have been a non sequitor at best.

"I was responding to a post by Marty Peretz about Arabs in Israel."  sdemuth

This among other things is what the article said.

"Because I read an article by Bradley Burston in today's Ha'aretz reporting on a public opinion survey done by the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard's JFK School in Israel. One of its queries to Israeli Arabs revealed that 77% of this cohort wanted to live in Israel more than any other country in the world. Todd Pittinsky, director of the project, told Burston that he was surprised  by the happy news of great expectations and good results in the field."

Got any thoughts about this?

Marty didn't mention this but the poll also found that:

• A great majority of both Jewish citizens (73%) and Arab citizens (94%) want Israel to be a society in which Arab and Jewish citizens have mutual respect and equal opportunities.

• 68% of Jewish citizens support teaching conversational Arabic in Jewish schools to help bring Arab and Jewish citizens together.

• 77% of Arab citizens would rather live in Israel than in any other country in the world.

• More than two-thirds of Jewish citizens (69%) believe contributing to coexistence is a personal responsibility; a majority (58%) of Jewish citizens also support cabinet level action.

• Arab citizens and Jewish citizens both underestimate their communities’ liking of the “other.”

• Urgent action on coexistence in Israel is desired: 66% of Jewish citizens and 84% of Arab citizens believe the Israeli government investments should begin now, and not wait until the end of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Here is a link to the poll:

content.ksg.harvard.edu/.../coexistence%20in%20israel.pdf

"Got any thoughts about this?"

I think it reflects very well on Israeli society.  Based on the Israeli people I know and regularly do business with, and those I have met through my son-in-law's family, I wouldn't have expected otherwise.

My response was a question about what we should expect in the constitution of a government in a multi-ethnic or multi-creedal state.  I purposefully made it general, because it is a question for all nations, to me.  Yes, it mentioned Israel specifically, because Peretz's post was about Arabs in Israel, and yes, I answered other posts that compared Israel to other nations that have explicitly creedal constitutions (which both agree Israel does not, it not have a constitution per se) with thoughts about Israel, because that is where the thread went.

Contrary to your assumptions, jacksondyer, I am not anti-Israeli, and I am certainly no more critical of the Israeli government and people than I am of, say France (where I work and know many people), or the US (where I also work and live), and am certainly far less critical of them than I am of, say, China (where I do considerable business, and have colleagues) or Russia, or any state in the Arab league.  

But I am critical of all of those places, because I think they all fall significantly short (less so in the former, more so in the latter) of what I expect from a government in a multi-ethnic, multi-creedal, globally interconnected world.

"But I am critical of all of those places, because I think they all fall significantly short (less so in the former, more so in the latter) of what I expect from a government in a multi-ethnic, multi-creedal, globally interconnected world."

I am not sure "the world" can be judged by such high standards. In any case, there is no heaven on earth, and don't believe there ever will be. Heck, I don't believe there is a heaven in heaven.

I don't know if you are familiar with the Argentinean aphorist Antonio Porchia but he has said that he wouldn't want a heaven in which he couldn't import a little bit of hell into. (Or words to that effect.) I like the sentiment of that saying.