Nonsense repeated ad nauseam remains nonsense. A Jewish state like any other state tethered to a superstition may become a democratic state by severing the connection and becoming a state for all of its citizens.

Dear David F.,

Did you really have to comment first on this article?
This robot wouldn't stop so long as it gets replies, because without replies the article will not be listed on this forum's main page.

Now you mentioned the "Jewish state":

Israel was not originally meant to be a Jewish state, but became so by compromise.
The early Zionists intended to create a Hebrew state, reviving the ancient Hebrew culture and language while providing Jews, especially East-European Jews, with a place where they can live a normal and more natural life on the land while escaping both Antisemitism and the internal pressures within Jewish communities. These Zionists were more than happy to include the local Arabs in their revival project (See http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/213/rereading-herzls-old-new-land/).

Conditions in Israel were difficult due to the Arabs' unexpected refusal to cooperate with Zionism, so following the holocaust, with the wave of sympathy towards Jews and international offer of a Jewish home, the Zionist elite became opportunistic and told themselves: "A supported Jewish state is the best we can get for now, we also happen to be Jewish so let us seize the opportunity, outwardly accepting the title 'Jewish state' while internally preserving the values of our Hebrew state".

Yet this half-hearted compromise could not hold together indefinitely. Israel was gradually taken over demographically by "true-Jews", which recently won its majority. Now its social cracks are widening and Israel will not be able to remain as one for much longer, it will have to break into two or more states, at least one following your own style of democracy and at least one other looking more like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

As for "state tethered to a superstition", superstition requires actual real belief to exist, not just declarations, and I doubt there are many in Israel today who really believe in Jewish superstitions. Yes they claim to believe, but Nazi parties find it convenient to hide behind religion whereas they only believe in nation and race. Even if some of them do believe in the Bible, that would only be in the book of Joshua!

Flogging a very dead horse there, mate.

Only an imbecile of th3e first water would continue to argue your case when the fly blown carcass smells to high heaven.

Better odds for taking a stroll on the dark side of the moon without a spacesuit!
Alan B.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Of course, I didn't have to comment first on this article. You are free to either comment on my comments or ignore them. The author of the article has one theme he repeats and so do I.

I regard what is happening now Israel as a tragedy. There are two opposing tendencies which grow farther and farther apart. I support one of the tendencies. What the early Zionists wanted is now irrelevant. However, I understand that most religious Jews opposed Zionism. They opposed it since they believed it should be left to the wisdom of God whether Jews would return to the Holy Land, and a political movement seeking to achieve that was in itself suspect since it was humans usurping the will of God. Religious groups now find themselves in control of what they opposed in the first place. Many religious Christians supported Zionism since they believed that a Jewish return to the Holy Land would be followed by Jewish adoption of Christianity.

Many of the Deists who wrote the Constitution of the United States regarded separation of religion and state as necessary for a just nation. So do I. Many in the current Republican Party in the US and in the current government in Israel are opposed to that separation.

We will see what happens.

Dear David F.,

When nobody makes the first comment, the article isn't listed on this forum's home-page (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au).

«They opposed it since they believed it should be left to the wisdom of God whether Jews would return to the Holy Land»

They opposed it since they believed it would constitute a rebellion against God, based on the Talmud interpretations for the Songs of Songs Chapter 2, verse 7:
"I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please."
And Chapter 8, verse 4:
"I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, until he please."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths

Their nationalist opponents found an opposing statement in the Song of Songs Chapter 5, verses 2-8:

"I sleep, but my heart waketh: it is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled: for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night.
I have put off my coat; how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them?
My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock."
I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, and was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.
The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.
I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I am sick of love."

I beg your deep thinking: which of these verses is the correct one?