miércoles, 5 de octubre de 2011

Why Israel can't be a "Jewish State"



[QODLink]
Opinion
Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State'
The Israeli demand to be recognised as a "Jewish state" by the Palestinians is an inherently problematic concept
 Last Modified: 30 Sep 2011 17:58
Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker
1.6bn Muslims and 2.4bn Christians regard Jerusalem as holy, which is about 55 per cent of the world's population [EPA]
The Israeli government's current mantra is that the Palestinians must recognise a "Jewish State". Of course, the Palestinians have clearly and repeatedly recognised the State of Israel as such in the 1993 Oslo Accords (which were based on an Israeli promise to establish a Palestinian state within five years - a promise now shattered) and many times since. Recently, however, Israeli leaders have dramatically and unilaterally moved the goal-posts and are now clamouring that Palestinians must recognise Israel as a "Jewish State".
In 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry concluded that the demand for a "Jewish State" was not part of the obligations of the Balfour Declaration or the British Mandate. Even in the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897, when Zionists sought to "establish a home for the Jewish people", there was no reference of a "Jewish State". The Zionist Organisation preferred at first to use the description "Jewish homeland" or "Jewish Commonwealth". Many pioneering Zionist leaders, such as Judah Magnes and Martin Buber also avoided the clear and explicit term "Jewish State" for their project of a homeland for Jews, and preferred instead the concept of a democratic bi-national state.
Today, however, demands for a "Jewish State" from Israeli politicians are growing without giving thought to what this might mean, and its supporters claim that it would be as natural as calling France a French State. However, if we consider the subject dispassionately, the idea of a "Jewish State" is logically and morally problematic because of its legal, religious, historical and social implications. The implications of this term therefore need to be spelled out, and we are sure that once they are, most people - and most Israeli citizens, we trust - will not accept these implications.
Many implications
First, let us say that confusion immediately arises here because the term "Jewish" can be applied both to the ancient race of Israelites and their descendants, as well as to those who believe in and practice the religion of Judaism. These generally overlap, but not always. For example, some ethnic Jews are atheists and there are converts to Judaism (leaving aside the question of whether these are accepted as such by Ultra-Orthodox Jews) who are not ethnic Jews.
Second, let us suggest also that having a modern nation-state being defined by one ethnicity or one religion is problematic in itself - if not inherently self-contradictory - because the modern nation-state as such is a temporal and civic institution, and because no state in the world is - or can be in practice - ethnically or religiously homogenous.
Third, recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state" implies that Israel is, or should be, either a theocracy (if we take the word "Jewish" to apply to the religion of Judaism) or an apartheid state (if we take the word "Jewish" to apply to the ethnicity of Jews), or both, and in all of these cases, Israel is then no longer a democracy - something which has rightly been the pride of most Israelis since the country's founding in 1948.
Fourth, at least one in five Israelis - 20 per cent of the population, according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics - is ethnically Arab (and are mostly either Muslim, Christian, Druze or Bahai), and recognising Israel as a "Jewish State" as such makes one-fifth of the population of Israel automatically strangers in their own native land and opens the door to legally reducing them, most undemocratically, to second-class citizens (or perhaps even stripping them of their citizenship and other rights) - something that no-one, much less a Palestinian leader, has a right to do.
Fifth, recognising a "Jewish State" as such in Israel would mean legally that while Palestinians no longer have citizens' rights there, any member of world Jewry outside of Israel (up to 10 million people perhaps), should be entitled to full citizens' rights there, no matter wherever they may be in the world today and regardless of their current nationality. Indeed, Israel publicly admits that it does not hold the land for the benefit of its citizens but holds it, in trust, on behalf of the Jews of the world for all time. This is something that happens in practice, but that obviously Palestinians in the occupied territories - including Jerusalem - do not see as fair, especially as they are constantly forcibly evicted off their ancestral homeland by Israel to make way for foreign Jewish settlers, and because Palestinians in their diaspora are denied the same right to come and live.
Sixth, it means, before final status negotiations have even started, that Palestinians would have then given up the rights of about 7 million Palestinians in the diaspora to repatriation or compensation; 7 million Palestinians descended from the Palestinians who in 1900 lived in historical Palestine (ie what is now Israel, the West Bank including Jerusalem, and Gaza) and at that time made up 800,000 of its 840,000 inhabitants; and who were driven off their land through war, violent eviction or fear.
Seventh, recognising a "Jewish state" in Israel - a state which purports to annex the whole of Jerusalem, East and West, and calls Jerusalem its "eternal, undivided capital" (as if the city, or even the world itself, were eternal; as if it were really undivided, and as if it actually were legally recognised by the international community as Israel's capital) - means completely ignoring the fact that Jerusalem is as holy to 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims, as it is to 15-20 million Jews worldwide.
In other words, this would be to privilege Judaism above the religions of Christianity and Islam, whose adherents together comprise 55 per cent of the world's population. Regrettably this is a narrative propagated even by renowned Jewish author and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, who, on April 15, 2010, took out full page ads in The New York Timesand The Washington Post and claimed that Jerusalem "is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture - and not a single time in the Qur'an". Now we do not propose to speak for native Palestinian Arab Christians - except to say the that Jerusalem is quite obviously the city of Jesus Christ the Messiah - but as Muslims, we believe that Jerusalem is not the "third holiest city of Islam" as is sometimes claimed, but simply one of Islam's three holy cities. And, of course, despite what Mr Wiesel seems to believe, Jerusalem is indeed clearly referred to in the Holy Qur'an in Surat al-Isra' (17:1):
"Glorified be He Who transported His servant by night from the Inviolable Place of Worship to the Aqsa Place of Worship whose precincts We have blessed, that We might show him of Our tokens! Lo! He, only He, is the Hearer, the Seer."
Moreover, Muslims wanting to take a similar, religiously exclusive narrative, could point out that while Jerusalem is mentioned 600 times in the Bible, it is not mentioned once in the Torah as such - a fact that any Biblical Concordance will easily confirm. Of course we do, however, recognise the importance of the land of Israel in the religion of Judaism - this is even mentioned in the Qur'an, 5:21 - we only ask that the Israeli government reciprocate this courtesy and allow Muslims to speak for themselves in expressing what they consider, and have always considered, as holy to them.
There is another reason, more serious than all of the seven mentioned above, why Palestinian leaders - and indeed no responsible person - can morally recognise Israel as a "Jewish State" as such. It has to do with the very Covenant of God in the Bible with Ancient Israelites of the promise of a homeland for Jews. God says to Abraham in the Bible:
On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying:
"To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates - the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." (Genesis, 15:18-21; NKJ)
The ancient Israelites then go on to possess this land in the time of Moses, upon God's command, as follows:
"When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. (Deuteronomy, 7:1-2; NKJ)
"Hear, O Israel: You are to cross over the Jordan today, and go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than yourself, cities great and fortified up to heaven, a people great and tall, the descendants of the Anakim, whom you know, and of whom you heard it said: 'Who can stand before the descendants of Anak?' Therefore understand today that the LORD your God is He who goes over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and bring them down before you; so you shall drive them out and destroy them quickly, as the LORD has said to you." (Deuteronomy, 9:1-4; NKJ)
The fate of many of the original inhabitants is then as follows:
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword. (Joshua, 6:21; NKJ)
And this continues even later on in time, as follows:
Samuel also said to Saul: "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Samuel, 15:1-3; NKJ)
Now it is very easy to cherry-pick quotes from scripture permitting or enjoining violence. One could cite, out of context, verses such as the "sword verse" in the Holy Qur'an:
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free. God is Forgiving, Merciful. (Al-Tawbah, 9:5)
One could even cite verses - again out of context - from Jesus Christ's own words in the Gospel, as follows:
"But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.'" (Luke, 19:27; NKJ)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." (Matthew, 10:34; NKJ)
Democracy or a Jewish State?
Nevertheless, it remains true that, in the Old Testament, God commands the Jewish state in the land of Israel to come into being through warfare and violent dispossession of the original inhabitants. Moreover, this command has its roots in the very Covenant of God with Abraham (or rather "Abram" at that time) in the Bible and it thus forms one of the core tenets of Judaism as such, at least as we understand it. No one then can blame Palestinians and descendents of the ancient Canaanites, Jebusites and others who inhabited the land before the Ancient Israelites (as seen in the Bible itself) for a little trepidation as regards what recognising Israel as a "Jewish State" means for them, particularly to certain Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox Jews. No one then can blame Palestinians for asking if recognising Israel as a "Jewish State" means recognising the legitimacy of offensive warfare or violence against them by Israel to take what remains of Palestine from them.
We need hardly say that this comes against a background where every day the Israeli settler movement is grabbing more land in the West Bank and Jerusalem (there are now 500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank alone) - aided, abetted, funded and empowered by the current Israeli government - and throwing or forcing more and more Palestinians out, in so many different ways that it would take volumes to describe. Moreover, there are credible reports that despite the almost universal agreement in Rabbinical texts throughout the ages that the divine command to kill the Amalekites was a unique and isolated historical incident that applied only to the race of the Ancient Amalekites, there are now, in certain religious schools in Israel, people who draw parallels between the Palestinians of today and the ancient Amalekites and their like (this was apparently the opinion of Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, a former chief Rabbi of Israel; see also, for example: Shulamit Aloni's article 'Murder Under the Cover of Righteousness', CounterPunch, March, 8-9, 2003).
In short, recognition of Israel as a "Jewish State" in Israel is not the same as, say, recognition of Greece today as a "Christian State". It entails, in the Old Testament itself, a Covenant between God and a Chosen People regarding a Promised Land that should be taken by force at the expense of the other inhabitants of the land and of non-Jews. This idea is not present as such in other religions that we know of. Moreover, even secular and progressive voices in Israel, such as former president of the Supreme Court of Israel, Aharon Barak, understand the concept of a "Jewish State" as follows:
"[The] Jewish State is the state of the Jewish people … it is a state in which every Jew has the right to return … a Jewish state derives its values from its religious heritage, the Bible is the basic of its books and Israel's prophets are the basis of its morality … a Jewish state is a state in which the values of Israel, Torah, Jewish heritage and the values of the Jewish halacha [religious law] are the bases of its values." ('A State in Emergency', Ha'aretz, 19 June, 2005.)
So, rather than demand that Palestinians recognise Israel as a "Jewish State" as such - adding "beyond chutzpah" to insult and injury - we offer the suggestion that Israeli leaders ask instead that Palestinians recognise Israel (proper) as a civil, democratic, and pluralistic state whose official religion is Judaism, and whose majority is Jewish. Many states (including Israel's neighbours Jordan and Egypt, and countries such as Greece) have their official religion as Christianity or Islam (but grant equal civil rights to all citizens) and there is no reason why Israeli Jews should not want the religion of their state to be officially Jewish. This is a reasonable demand, and it may allay the fears of Jewish Israelis about becoming a minority in Israel, and at the same time not arouse fears among Palestinians and Arabs about being ethnically cleansed in Palestine. Demanding the recognition of Israel's official religion as Judaism, rather than the recognition of Israel as a "Jewish State", would also mean Israel continuing to be a democracy.
Sari Nusseibeh is a professor of philosophy at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source:
Al Jazeera
Topics in this article
People
Country
City
Organisation
Featured on Al Jazeera
The first of a four-part investigation into a world of greed and recklessness that led to financial collapse.
The Israeli demand to be recognised as a "Jewish state" by the Palestinians is an inherently problematic concept
How a group of US veterans in Vietnam are trying to atone for the mistakes of the past.
Noam Chomsky explains how the global order of power has been created and describes the mechanisms behind its continuity.
Content on this website is for general information purposes only. Your comments are provided by your own free will and you take sole responsibility for any direct or indirect liability. You hereby provide us with an irrevocable, unlimited, and global license for no consideration to use, reuse, delete or publish comments, in accordance with Community Rules & Guidelines and Terms and Conditions.

Add New Comment

Required: Please login below to comment.

Showing 1-20 of 637 comments

Sort by    Subscribe by email   Subscribe by RSS
Real-time updating is enabled(Pause)
  • Yo Mismo 4 days ago
    "First, let us say that confusion immediately arises here because the term "Jewish" can be applied both to the ancient race of Israelites and their descendants, as well as to those who believe in and practice the religion of Judaism. These generally overlap, but not always."

    That is far from proven. 99% of Jews within and without Israel can't trace back their origin to any known ancestor actually born in the Holy Land before the 20th Century. I'd say Palestinians have far more chances of being the descendants of the Israelites of old than somebody from Wiszniewo or Kishinev.
  • Imagine if we gave up stupid dated religous differences entirely and took each other for human beings rather, then no one would give a f__k where you were born! GET RID OF RELIGION, PEOPLE!!! IT IS DIVIDING HUMANITY, DO YOU NOT CARE??!!!
  • If I'm not mistaken, we're all traced back genetically to Africa. The region around Ethiopia, wasn't it?
    Perhaps we should all return & claim our rights to our 'homeland'?
  • Religion is OK if it is treated as such, an inner self satisfaction, without proselytizing, or dismissing the religions of others as unworthy. It has its good qualities and if taken to extreme it can destroy both that embrace it and those who are affected by those extremists, including their own families.
  • We don't need to get rid of religion - we just need to stop ramming it down people's throats.
  • Lol lol lol "get rid of religion" so where do you think the world came from sir ??? The big bang ? Hahahahahaha
  • The demand for recognition of Jewish state is equivalent to requiring the final settlement of the conflict without the "right of return" or future territorial demands (see Hamas ideology to understand why this is important).
  • Without religion you are not more than animal. Reflect yourself where do you come from
  • Religion is for Sheep.  Brilliant..articulate..Sheep
  • Getting rid of Religion will only cause chaos, what everyone needs is a religion that has rules about everything, even how to treat your enemies. If you really want to learn about a religion as beautiful as this, then I suggest to hit the library because I guarantee that if you look there is a religion that literally means "PEACE" and it promotes equality and respect from a plant, to an enemy.
  • The Israel Palestinian conflict is a very difficult conflict to solve because it a dispute over land resources and also on the lines of religion. The dispute over land is easy to solve. Based on the Geneva Agreement that Sari Nuissebah was part of of the Clinton Plan or what Barak Offered Yaaser Arafat at Taba (and was turned down). Any of these could work.

    But when you add religion into this. Religious Jews view Israel as belonging completely to the Jews and the Muslims view any non-Muslim rule over Palestine as unacceptable. I hope that some day this dispute will be solved even though it will probably take a long time
  • That my fellow non believer is the most enlightened thing I have ever seen on this site.
  • I care about caps lock.
    But don't worry about religion, without religion we would still be divided... race, ressources, nationalism, political ideology, cultural difference, oil, poverty... there's thousand of excuses to hate and fight eachother. Don't make religion the exclusive war starter, that's silly...
  • Please provide a source to your bogus claim that "99% of Jews within and without Israel can't trace back their origin"
  • Enoughie

    Zionist started colonizing my country, Palestine, in the mid 1800's.  They used terrorist acts to scare people into leaving.

    Ben Gurion must have been suffering from some form of delusion or another becuase in 1937 he told the Jewish Agency Executive, the organization charged with procuring land for Jewish settlements in Palestine, “I am for compulsory transfer; I don’t see anything immoral in it."  Was this uttered in a brotherly manner do you suppose?

    You are presenting a very distorted version of history. By deliberately omitting the colonization designs Zionist had for Palestine your are ignoring one side in favor of the other.  These so called Palestinian violence and aggression were due to the Palestinian's realization that their country was being stolen by Zionists and that the freedom and liberation they were promised by the British is nothing more than a hopeless dream.

    But assuming your argument is true, and assuming that there were violent and aggressive riots by the Palestinians simple because their leaders refused to compromise, does that justify the uprooting of innocent people from their homes? Does it justify the expulsion of half of the population from their native land? Does it justify the destruction and demolishing of more than 500 villages and towns? Does it justify the massacres of Dair Yasin, Naser Al-Din, Tantura, Dahmash Mosque. Dawayma, Kafr Qasim  and many more? Does it justify the destruction of a whole culture and a whole people?  It was then as it is now, Zionists believe that collective punishment is acceptable and, indeed, necessary.
  • You keep using these empty slogans "colonization", "uprooting", Zionist "terrorism," which obviously appeal to Western ears, but in reality distort history and delude people about what really happened, and about the role of Palestinian leaders in their own predicament.

    Colonization? LEGALLY acquiring land to settle can hardly be called colonization. Let alone the fact that Jews received international acceptance to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, while protecting the rights of Palestine's Arab inhabitants - which is what Zionists have been doing. If you call that colonizing, than this is the most good-natured colonization in the history of humanity.

    Colonization is what Arab Muslims did to the whole Middle East.

    Both the League of Nations and ARAB leaders agreed to the Zionist plans. See the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, and Prince Faisal's letter to the President of the Zionist Organization of America:

    "The Arabs . . . look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris [Peace Conference of 1919] is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper."

    "Fully acquainted" with the "moderate" and "proper" proposals of the Zionist movement. That is how Arab leaders viewed Zionist aims to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. That is, until Arabs were betrayed by the French and British who decided to establish their mandates over the ME. But that is not the fault of the Jews, is it?

    Now, Zionists used terrorism to scare people to leave? Please give a date to when Zionists started to use these acts against Palestinians. 1937? 1947? Palestinians started to use terror to scare Jews to leave in the 1920s. They also murdered and ethnically cleansed the entire Jewish population of Hebron in 1929. It is precisely these Arab acts of terror (which greatly intensified in the 1930s) that prompted Ben Gurion to reconsider the idea of having an integrated Arab and Jewish society. Separating the Arab and Jewish populations was probably the only way to stop the violence (which became an all out civil war in 1947).

    "But assuming your argument is true, and assuming that there were violent and aggressive riots by the Palestinians simple because their leaders refused to compromise, does that justify the uprooting of innocent people from their homes?"

    You're forgetting that the solution of Palestinian and Arab leaders to the conflict was the EXTERMINATION of the Jews of Palestine. That was what Haj Amin al-Husseini proposed to Hitler in the 1940s, and that is what Arab states threatened to do during the 1948 war. This is all well documented.

    So is it justified to remove a hostile population that threatens to exterminate you (especially after millions of Jews were already murdered in Europe)? I don't know. But it is certainly not an unreasonable way to prevent the continuation of friction, riots, violence, and war.

    " It was then as it is now, Zionists believe that collective punishment is acceptable and, indeed, necessary."

    You're again distorting history. Don't forget that while about 65% of the Palestinian population left or was expelled from what became Israel, 100% of Jews were expelled from what was supposed to become the Arab state. Of course, there were only about 10,000 Jews living there, but don't you also forget that on top of that, about 1,000,000 Jews were expelled from the entire Middle East! These Jews posed no threat whatsoever to the Arab population. So Arabs certainly also believe in collective punishment, including Palestinians, who keep targeting Israeli civilians in their terror attacks and rocket attacks.  It is time for you accept that fact.
  • There were only 7000 Jews living in Palestine in 1800. Just google "Demographics of Palestine". All the rest came from elsewhere during the different Aliyas from the late 19th Century on, specially after 1919 under British Mandate. Those immigrants were foreign born, just like their parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents and all their ancestors as memory could tell, since they belonged to long-established Jewish collectives, who had been living in their respective countries for millennia. It is simply impossible to trace your ancestors for 2000 years. I challenge anyone to prove direct genealogical link to anyone born 2000 years ago. European Jews were Europeans of Jewish religion, as far as anyone can tell.
  • Enoughie

    It was also proven that the modern day Palestinians and the Arabs in the Levant are genetically as close to, or closer to any modern Jewish population than Jewish population to each other.  There is genetic evidence suggesting that Palestinians and the Arabs of the Levant are direct decedents of the Hebrews and other tribes who dwelt in the land of Canaan, who later converted to Christianity or Islam and who were Arabiezed.  According to geneticist Ariella Oppenheim, DNA studies shows that Palestinians are the "desendents of a core population that lived in  the area since prehistoric times". Still more,  a study of 1371 men from around the world by geneticist Michael Hammer "found that the Y chromosome in Middle Eastern Arabs was almost indistinguishable from that of Jews." Your can read this in an article in Science now, by the title Jews and Arabs Share Recent Ancestry.

    But this really is a silly argument because it does not matter whether all Jews have a common gene or not, nor does it matter whether they share genes with the Arabs or not.  In the end all humans have common genes that can be traced back to the original source.  The use of DNA is only so you can give "scientific evidence" as to why you kill, uproot and destroy my people.
  • "why you kill, uproot and destroy my people." I don't know who "your people" are. But I'm assuming you're talking about the Jews. After all, Arabs started killing and uprooting Jews from Hebron in 1929.

    If you're talking about the Palestinians, then clearly it has nothing to do with genetics. Zionist leaders stressed the Jewish and Palestinian brotherhood from the start of the Zionist project. As Ben Gurion stated: "The greater majority and the main structures of the Muslim Fellahin in Western Erez Israel present to us one racial strand and a whole ethnic unit, and there is no doubt that much Jewish blood flows in their veins -- the blood of those farmers, ‘lay persons,’ who chose in the travesty of times to abandon their faith in order to remain on their land." (Ben Gurion, 1917)

    So if you ask, what brought on the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe). The answer is pretty clear: the insistence of Palestinian leaders to use violence and terror instead of dialogue, and utter refusal to compromise - starting from the 1920s and until this day. Zionists, by the way, did not "uproot" any Palestinian until Palestinians started the war on the Jewish community in Palestine in 1947.
  • I don't know if you realize this, but we don't live in 1850 anymore. DNA analysis is a very reliable method of verifying the ancestry of any group, and it can date back millennia. It was genetically demonstrated that European Jews are only about 15% related to Europeans, while at the same time 85% related to Middle Eastern populations (and in particular to Middle Eastern Jews). Just because this fact doesn't sit well with your political ideology doesn't mean that it isn't true. You cannot just dismiss evidence because it doesn't suit your ideology, or because it is inconvenient for you. Your argument is meaningless, because you do not have any evidence to back it up. DNA analysis proves European (and Middle Eastern) Jews came from the Middle East.
1 2 … 32 Next 

Reactions

  • ReneSJ 54 minutes ago
      From  Twitter
    esto si es complejo: porque Israel no puede convertirse en un "estado judio" http://t.co/K7Ad2qIX
  • ilurbi 1 hour ago
      From  Twitter
    http://t.co/dxeRB4p0 http://t.co/D8lgpFt2
  • Bagus Cayo Mastriza 2 hours ago
      From  Twitter
    Ini baru sudut pandang universal, bkn kepentingan SARA RT @ajenglish Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State' - Al Jazeera http://t.co/NwRcrwKE
  • Focal Point 2 hours ago
      From  Twitter
    Why #Israel cant be a #Jewish state http://t.co/ATbEYliU
  • جوان بوريل 2 hours ago
      From  Twitter
    Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State' - Sari Nusseibeh OpEd on Al Jazeera English http://t.co/jtaMZRlD vía @ajenglish
  • Kamal Cumsille 3 hours ago
      From  Twitter
    Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State' http://t.co/xBIgWCJc
  • Sharron Ward 5 hours ago
      From  Twitter
    Why #Israel can't be a 'Jewish State' - Opinion - Al Jazeera English http://t.co/HjFa1sKM via @ajenglish
  • ozgurpala 8 hours ago
      From  Twitter
    Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State' - Opinion - Al Jazeera English: http://t.co/9zl9hLkJ via @AddThis
  • Batuhan Olkan 9 hours ago
      From  Twitter
    @zeynebicener Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State" ? : http://t.co/GIIOLCp7
  • Teuku Fariza 10 hours ago
      From  Twitter
    Why Israel can't be a Jewish State? http://t.co/IeKS5gAq
  •  


Related
Whether the UN grants the PA status as a state or refuses to do so, either outcome will be in Israel's interest. ( 15-Sep-2011 )




Syria Uprising
Syrian security forces continue violent crackdown on anti-government protests despite sanctions.
<  > 



Join Our Mailing List

Activate




Enter Zip Code
Go


No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario