RE: [Futurework] Roadmap will fail

[Karen Watters Cole]

Then, what is Jewishness?  If it is simply DNA and not a faith, you are practicing an exclusionary genetic tribal philosophy, not a statement of active faith by choice.     I have American Jewish friends who are not practicing Judaism but who seem to have transferred the passions of a religious faith to a dogma when it comes to Israel.    Without bringing this thread into another religious theme, if Israel is more than a promised land for Jews, shouldn’t those who do not live there let those who do create and change it to accommodate the reality of life in disputed territory for themselves without the non-practicing non-residents holding them to a secularized ritualistic Eden that validates some doctrine?   KWC   Bill,   Under the Nuremburg Laws whether you are "actively Jewish" or passively Jewish you are Jewish.  So I think the Jews in Israel see their fate tied to the well being, strength and continued existence of a Jewish state.   arthur Keith, As some one who is pro-Palestinian with a Jewish daughter-in-law and a Jewish granddaughter, I strongly argue for a separation of Judaism and Israel since very few in Israel are actively Jewish. You wrote:         I don't see America's long-term partiality to Jewry changing much in the         coming years. Right wing Christians argue for Israel at the same time that they tend to be anti-Jewish. Strong Israeli supporters accuse those who have any feelings for Palestinians as being anti-Jewish. Both positions tend to harm Judaism. Bill On Wed, 28 May 2003 12:27:43 +0100 Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Harry, At 11:34 27/05/2003 -0700, you wrote: Keith, Or perhaps it won't fail. We'll have to see. Would you concede that an American President who is prepared to act rather than talk, who has just completed a successful war with minimum casualties on all sides against an enemy of Israel, might have a decisive effect on a somewhat implacable Israel? Bush could certainly have a decisive effect on Israel-Palestine, but if Sharon starts making objections and there's a stalemate then Bush will take his side, not the Palestinians'. I don't see America's long-term partiality to Jewry changing much in the coming years. Unlike Clinton, Bush offers the aspect of someone who means what he says. He also controls the money that keeps both Israel and Palestine going. That's true and he'll keep sending the money to Israel. I'm coming to belief that the problem is more Palestinian than Israeli. The Israeli "occupation" as Sharon called it may end. Palestine must quickly form a government  and Arafat must release control of the several security services he presently holds. I think the problem is now so complex that only force majeure will solve it. Constructively, it could be done by the imposition of fair boundaries on the two nations by America. In fact (I fear) the force majeure will be applied by the Israelis against the Palestinians and the Americans will supply the former with whatever they need by way of munitions.   My fear at the moment is that the settlements may be destroyed in the Israeli withdrawal. They should be placed in the hands of Palestinians by the new Government. (Think of that political Pandora's Box.) Saw a bit of Bush this morning. He was chatting amiably with a bunch of baseball people at some kind of ceremony. He joked, made allusions to some inside baseball stuff, generally was most relaxed. He is certainly able chat to baseball people!  But ring me up (reverse the charges) when you next see him talking socially to anyone halfway intelligent -- doctors, say, or scientists, or international politicians or university deans or even, so help me, a bunch of CEOs. Didn't see any of the Gnomes of the Beltway handing him a script, or prompting him, He was on his own  as a former President of a baseball franchise. Rather, as he has been on several occasions that I have seen.  Notably that Press Conference, where he walked alone some 40-50 feet up to the podium - then engaged the Press for about 50 minutes, as I recall. On any one occasion he has a bunch of carefully prepared statements and he won't depart much, if at all, from those. Once again, Harry, I have absolutely nothing against the guy. He is about of average intelligence and the product of his minders ever since he went into politics. The point is that someone of average intelligence is simply not good enough to be a leader (in any real sense of the word) of a complex and powerful nation. No other President has appeared before the Press without a covey of handlers with him. Also, I can't remember another President spending so much time with the Press. Usually someone from their 'covies' tells the President to end the session. I see a different President from the one who is reviled in the Press and elsewhere. I do see the BBC news every night. (Channel Four News used to be on over here, but I can't find it. Maybe it has been discontinued.) The BBC is definitely biassed against America, and particularly against Bush.  That's a good reason for every American and Canadian to watch it. For they'll see anti-American opinions that perhaps will never be heard on our newscasts - except with accompanied amazement. "How can they?" Bush now has a reputation. I hope he won't lose his nerve, but will use his successes to bring a peace of some sort to the Middle East. Snowflake in hell's chance, I'm afraid. I wish you were right but I'm extremely doubtful. But let's not get too excited about all this. Time will tell and let's hope that there's time for both of us to see who is right about Bush. This is a most fascinating change-point in history. Keith Hudson   Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England