What is a "Jewish State?"

[Meow Mix]

I've occasionally seen Israel spoken of as a "Jewish State." It's never sat with me right (I am not fond of the notion of state religions or theocracies), so I started to look into it.

I found this quote:

"What, then are the 'core' characteristics shaping the minimum definition of the State of Israel as a Jewish State? These characteristics come from the aspects of both Zionism and heritage. At their center stands the right of every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel, where the Jews will constitute a majority; Hebrew is the official and principal language of the State and most of its fests and symbols reflect the national revival of the Jewish People; The heritage of the Jewish People is a central component of its religious and cultural legacy"

On this Wikipedia page.

Is this an accurate description of what it means for it to be a "Jewish State?"

I find this to be fundamentally unjust: why must Jews constitute a majority, for instance? What happens if that's ever not the case?

What *is* Zionism? I see this term thrown around a lot but have never really grasped what it's supposed to be.

Wikipedia says:

Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut; Arabic: صهيونية‎, Șahyouniyyah) is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory defined as the Land of Israel.[1] Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity, opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be a majority in their own nation, and to be liberated from antisemitic discrimination, exclusion, and persecution that had historically occurred in the diaspora.

Is this an accurate definition of "Zionism?" Again, if so, I find it to be partly unjust: how is this different from wanting a theocracy ("Jewish nation state")? I support being liberated from antisemitism, exclusion, persecution, etc. obviously, but if the goal of a nation is to become a theocracy for one religion, then that will always involve tyranny for the minorities in that nation, will it not?

 

[Flankerl]

I find this to be fundamentally unjust: why must Jews constitute a majority, for instance? What happens if that's ever not the case?

The last 19XX years should be a reminder. It simply cant happen when jews are the majority.

Is this an accurate definition of "Zionism?" Again, if so, I find it to be partly unjust: how is this different from wanting a theocracy ("Jewish nation state")? I support being liberated from antisemitism, exclusion, persecution, etc. obviously, but if the goal of a nation is to become a theocracy for one religion, then that will always involve tyranny for the minorities in that nation, will it not?

I fail to see where the quote even mentions a theocracy.

All non-jewish religions are pretty free in Israel.

 

[Shermana]

This is an issue that many of us Hebrews are a little squeamish about mentioning....

But it's a racial/ethnic reality.

Zionism was from the beginning a left wing, nationalist endeavor to carve out borders and a society for the Jewish ETHNIC people. And it was mainly by Atheist, Marxist Jews, with many of the religious Jews against the idea. The classical Zionist plans for Israel was the complete opposite of a Theocracy.

The concept is about being a Jewish ETHNIC state. Like how Germany is an Ethnically German state, even with Turkish and European minorities, even as a Liberal Society. Like how France is a Frankish/French Ethnic state. Like How Spain is a Spaniard ethnic state. Like how England is based as an Anglo ethnic state. Like how Japan is an ethnically Japanese state, though perhaps Israel is even less strict on the ethnicity issue than Japan.

Just like how Palestinians want an ARAB ETHNIC state because they feel it's "Arab Land". Not much different.

The religion concept is totally another animal in this game. There may be laws based on Jewish religion within various sectors of the society that are based on Democratic reforms.

But in the end, it's about race/ethnicity. No way around it. Unpalatable to some. But that's what a "Jewish State" means, regardless of anyone's sensitivity or white-washing about the term "Race" and "Ethnicity". The "homeland for the Jewish people" does not mean anything about the Jewish religion, it's about Jewish people, Jewish blood.

Obviously, many are not going to like this idea for whatever idealistic reasons but they're going to have to accept this reality and understand that the rest of the world before the modern era was the same exact way, and that's how all nation states before Colonialism were founded. And even Colonial states were essentially founded in a similar fashion.

Especially so if they want to sweep under the rug the whole "Palestinian nationalism" basis for the idea of a "Palestinian" state. You don't exactly see anyone complaining about the Palestinians wanting their State to be an ethnically "Palestinian" state, so if it's not a problem for them, or for their claims to "Arab Land", it shouldn't be a problem for Jews who claim it as "Jewish land".

(And Jews have in fact held the land, though in smaller numbers, since long before the Arabs colonized it).

This issue may cause our more squeamish Hebrew brothers to have to be a little more honest about the ethnic reality of both "being Jewish" (which is a slippery term to begin with) and the "Jewish identity" of Israel. It's 100% about race/ethnicity, and there's nothing unjust about that.

 

[Levite]

I've occasionally seen Israel spoken of as a "Jewish State." It's never sat with me right (I am not fond of the notion of state religions or theocracies), so I started to look into it.

I found this quote:



On this Wikipedia page.

Is this an accurate description of what it means for it to be a "Jewish State?"

I find this to be fundamentally unjust: why must Jews constitute a majority, for instance? What happens if that's ever not the case?

What *is* Zionism? I see this term thrown around a lot but have never really grasped what it's supposed to be.

Wikipedia says:



Is this an accurate definition of "Zionism?" Again, if so, I find it to be partly unjust: how is this different from wanting a theocracy ("Jewish nation state")? I support being liberated from antisemitism, exclusion, persecution, etc. obviously, but if the goal of a nation is to become a theocracy for one religion, then that will always involve tyranny for the minorities in that nation, will it not?

Judaism is more than a religion. It is a socioreligious ethnicity. In other words, it is an identity that incorporates both religious, nationalistic/social, and cultural/ethnic aspects.

A Jewish State is more than merely a safe haven from anti-Semitism. It is a place where Jewish culture can flourish in a Jewish atmosphere. Where the national ethos and symbologies reflect Jewish ideals, Jewish philosophies and aesthetics, and so forth. Where life is conducted in Jewish rhythms, the Jewish language is spoken, and Jewish art, culture, and thought is able to progress immersively.

In theory, the Jewish State should not be a theocracy. It was founded largely by secular Jews, and strong principles of religious tolerance were built into the primary laws of the nation. The biggest problem, in terms of religion, is not with non-Jewish religions, but with the intolerance of ultra-Orthodox Jews for non-Orthodox Jews, an issue currently hotly in process in Israeli society. While there is, unfortunately, a persistence of bias and prejudice, and Israeli Arabs and some other minorities sometimes find themselves victims of discrimination, this is not necessarily a religious issue, since the prejudice is as often found amongst secular Jews as among religious-- and vice-versa. It is an issue that Israeli society, like many other societies, is working on.

Again in theory, I suppose that it is not necessary that Jews constitute a majority of the populace. But in practice, this is seen as being the only way to ensure the continuity of the Jewish identity of the state. It is seen as quite likely that, if the Arab populace were permitted to attain majority, the more radical elements would engineer an Arab takeover of the Knesset (Parliament), and use their political majority to end Israel as a Jewish State, using the forms of legal procedure to accomplish what they could not do with armed insurgency.

We need and want a state of our own for the same reasons that any other culture wants a state of their own: to be a free people, on our own, in our own ancestral place, to be surrounded by our own folk, to speak our language, and to preserve our heritage.

It constantly baffles me that when these desires are put forth by other groups-- Native Americans, Tibetans, the French, the Poles, whoever-- the reasons are considered obvious, and their plight is sympathetic. But when Jews put forth the same desires, for the same reasons, it is deemed incomprehensible and oppressive to others, and we are answered with a barrage of reasons why we don't need a state, why we have no right to our homeland, and why we should be perfectly happy living in permanent exile in the lands of those who have historically oppressed us.

 

[Caladan]

I've occasionally seen Israel spoken of as a "Jewish State." It's never sat with me right (I am not fond of the notion of state religions or theocracies), so I started to look into it.

Israel is not the State of Judaism, it is the state of the Jewish people. Founded not on religion, but on Peopleood.
As far as religion goes Israel is officially a secular state, however like many other officially secular states (perhaps most), religion still plays part in society and politics.
Israel is a Jewish state in the same sense that Japan is a 'Japanese state'.

I find this to be fundamentally unjust: why must Jews constitute a majority, for instance? What happens if that's ever not the case?

The same way French constitute a majority in France, or Greeks constitute a majority in Greece. I am sure that neither one of these two nations wishes to relinquish a dominant majority of French or Greeks.

What *is* Zionism? I see this term thrown around a lot but have never really grasped what it's supposed to be.

In the most basic sense, Zionism is the idea of a homeland for the Jewish people, where they can express their social traits and their long held traditions not as a minority anymore, but freely. It's something our grandparents and sometimes our parents didn't have, as they always lived as an endangered minority, often a persecuted minority.

Is this an accurate definition of "Zionism?" Again, if so, I find it to be partly unjust: how is this different from wanting a theocracy ("Jewish nation state")? I support being liberated from antisemitism, exclusion, persecution, etc. obviously, but if the goal of a nation is to become a theocracy for one religion, then that will always involve tyranny for the minorities in that nation, will it not?

Israel has freedom of expression of all faiths, it just so happens that just like there is a dominant Hindu faith and culture in India, Judaism is the dominant faith in Israel. Also it's important to note that I don't see anything being said about religion in the quote you provided.

To give some sense of history to appreciate the reality of a Jewish state we need to look at the modern history of the Middle East. With the move of the colonial forces out of the Middle East, borders were drawn (sometimes arbitrarily) and dozens of states were formed. All of these new states had an Arab Muslim majority, except one nation which had a Jewish majority (and perhaps Lebanon which had a Christian majority but no more).
Today there are 22 Arab majority states, and one Jewish state. And if we wish to discuss religion, then there are over 50 Muslim majority states, and only one Jewish state.
Politically speaking, reality has proven that the Jewish state has been the stable of all the newly formed states in the Middle East. Not only by providing a multiparty political system, but also as we can see, nations around Israel are torn with sectarian violence, even between Muslim sects. On the other hand, Israel has been able to absorb millions of Jewish refugees from Europe and the Middle East and still form a functioning society. No coups in Israel, no civil wars between Jews, no revolutions, no dictatorships. All nations which border Israel (Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) experienced civil wars, revolutions, coups and a long tradition of dictatorships. Considering the history and current affairs in the region, while still in need to work out many issues, the Jewish state has proved to be able to take on many challenges and come out in good condition out of it. The idea of a Jewish homeland has proved to be functional and also compatible with democracy in a region where democracy is a scarce commodity.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Big chunks of New York and Florida come close.




Ba-da-dum!

 

[LuisDantas]

The last 19XX years should be a reminder. It simply cant happen when jews are the majority.

Sorry, what do you mean?

 

[Caladan]

Also just to clear the air about this 'racial' thing. There is no such thing as the Jewish race. There are no different human races at all to begin with, but just to clarify, Jews are a people with ethnic, cultural, and religious markers, as Levite pointed out.
We just need to look at Israeli society to see that Jewish society itself is highly diverse. Like many other Israelis of my generation I am of mixed Jewish ethnicity, both European and Middle Eastern, definitely not a member of some pure breed race.

 

[Flankerl]

Sorry, what do you mean?

Timeline of antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Meow Mix]

The last 19XX years should be a reminder. It simply cant happen when jews are the majority.

That I understand; but with a good society one doesn't have to have it written into the government's documents that their group MUST be the majority (to be safe). Am I just misreading it? When he says, "...where Jews will be the majority" does he mean by law or just by coincidence from immigration?

I guess I'm just asking: if population dynamics in the area start meaning Jews are not a majority for whatever reason, must something be done by law to counteract that, or was it just an immediate concern for safety to try to at least start off with a Jewish majority?

I fail to see where the quote even mentions a theocracy.

All non-jewish religions are pretty free in Israel.

Well that's what I'm trying to figure out. Is a "Jewish State" the same thing as saying a "Christian State" for instance -- does the term "Jewish" mean an ethnicity of some sort, or does it mean a religion?

Either way, is it just to build a nation state for an ethnicity or for a religion?

EDIT -- this has been cleared up from all of the responses put together, I think. Just commenting as such here so it isn't though I'm still confused about this.

 

[Meow Mix]

This is an issue that many of us Hebrews are a little squeamish about mentioning....

But it's a racial/ethnic reality.

Zionism was from the beginning a left wing, nationalist endeavor to carve out borders and a society for the Jewish ETHNIC people. And it was mainly by Atheist, Marxist Jews, with many of the religious Jews against the idea. The classical Zionist plans for Israel was the complete opposite of a Theocracy.

The concept is about being a Jewish ETHNIC state. Like how Germany is an Ethnically German state, even with Turkish and European minorities, even as a Liberal Society. Like how France is a Frankish/French Ethnic state. Like How Spain is a Spaniard ethnic state. Like how England is based as an Anglo ethnic state. Like how Japan is an ethnically Japanese state, though perhaps Israel is even less strict on the ethnicity issue than Japan.

Just like how Palestinians want an ARAB ETHNIC state because they feel it's "Arab Land". Not much different.

The religion concept is totally another animal in this game. There may be laws based on Jewish religion within various sectors of the society that are based on Democratic reforms.

But in the end, it's about race/ethnicity. No way around it. Unpalatable to some. But that's what a "Jewish State" means, regardless of anyone's sensitivity or white-washing about the term "Race" and "Ethnicity". The "homeland for the Jewish people" does not mean anything about the Jewish religion, it's about Jewish people, Jewish blood.

Obviously, many are not going to like this idea for whatever idealistic reasons but they're going to have to accept this reality and understand that the rest of the world before the modern era was the same exact way, and that's how all nation states before Colonialism were founded. And even Colonial states were essentially founded in a similar fashion.

Especially so if they want to sweep under the rug the whole "Palestinian nationalism" basis for the idea of a "Palestinian" state. You don't exactly see anyone complaining about the Palestinians wanting their State to be an ethnically "Palestinian" state, so if it's not a problem for them, or for their claims to "Arab Land", it shouldn't be a problem for Jews who claim it as "Jewish land".

(And Jews have in fact held the land, though in smaller numbers, since long before the Arabs colonized it).

This issue may cause our more squeamish Hebrew brothers to have to be a little more honest about the ethnic reality of both "being Jewish" (which is a slippery term to begin with) and the "Jewish identity" of Israel. It's 100% about race/ethnicity, and there's nothing unjust about that.

Okay. I'm a lot more comfortable about this than I was thinking it was a religious/theocratic thing -- though I do definitely have misgivings about a nation built around an ethnicity, they are of a much less severe nature than my misgivings about building a nation around a religion.

This at least answers my question of what a "Jewish State" is supposed to be, thank you.

EDIT -- Just commenting that I've since posting this understood that it's not an "ethnic" thing but more of a cultural thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Timeline of antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh? Are you implying that a Jewish state is necessary in order to somehow protect the Jewish people from antisemitism?

 

[Meow Mix]

Judaism is more than a religion. It is a socioreligious ethnicity. In other words, it is an identity that incorporates both religious, nationalistic/social, and cultural/ethnic aspects.

A Jewish State is more than merely a safe haven from anti-Semitism. It is a place where Jewish culture can flourish in a Jewish atmosphere. Where the national ethos and symbologies reflect Jewish ideals, Jewish philosophies and aesthetics, and so forth. Where life is conducted in Jewish rhythms, the Jewish language is spoken, and Jewish art, culture, and thought is able to progress immersively.

In theory, the Jewish State should not be a theocracy. It was founded largely by secular Jews, and strong principles of religious tolerance were built into the primary laws of the nation. The biggest problem, in terms of religion, is not with non-Jewish religions, but with the intolerance of ultra-Orthodox Jews for non-Orthodox Jews, an issue currently hotly in process in Israeli society. While there is, unfortunately, a persistence of bias and prejudice, and Israeli Arabs and some other minorities sometimes find themselves victims of discrimination, this is not necessarily a religious issue, since the prejudice is as often found amongst secular Jews as among religious-- and vice-versa. It is an issue that Israeli society, like many other societies, is working on.

Again in theory, I suppose that it is not necessary that Jews constitute a majority of the populace. But in practice, this is seen as being the only way to ensure the continuity of the Jewish identity of the state. It is seen as quite likely that, if the Arab populace were permitted to attain majority, the more radical elements would engineer an Arab takeover of the Knesset (Parliament), and use their political majority to end Israel as a Jewish State, using the forms of legal procedure to accomplish what they could not do with armed insurgency.

We need and want a state of our own for the same reasons that any other culture wants a state of their own: to be a free people, on our own, in our own ancestral place, to be surrounded by our own folk, to speak our language, and to preserve our heritage.

It constantly baffles me that when these desires are put forth by other groups-- Native Americans, Tibetans, the French, the Poles, whoever-- the reasons are considered obvious, and their plight is sympathetic. But when Jews put forth the same desires, for the same reasons, it is deemed incomprehensible and oppressive to others, and we are answered with a barrage of reasons why we don't need a state, why we have no right to our homeland, and why we should be perfectly happy living in permanent exile in the lands of those who have historically oppressed us.

It sounds like Israel's "de jure secular state, but de facto struggling with secularism" problem is very similar to what we struggle with in USA with the "Religious Right" trying to legislate their taboos on everyone else.

I do appreciate very much, though, that Israel is supposed to be secular rather than theocratic; that immensely tempers my concern about what a "Jewish State" is.

I think the difference between the Native Americans, Tibetans, French, Poles, even arguably Americans and so on is that those titles aren't also used to describe religions: for instance, (not to pick on you Mormons, this is just a hypothetical) it would be silly to say there should be a "Mormon State," and I think people get confused by the possibly religious (as opposed to ethnic) connotations of the term "Jewish State."

However, I am not 100% comfortable with the notion of states built around ethnicities/cultural identities. It's less offensive to me than states built around religions, and it really depends on how they are implemented (whether or not they are oppressive to minorities), but it's something I need to think on more about its justness.

I can understand wanting to maintain the cohesiveness of a culture under a flag, so it seems as long as that culture includes protecting minorities from the majority, I may not have a problem with it at all. Again, I'll have to think.

 

[Caladan]

Uh? Are you implying that a Jewish state is necessary in order to somehow protect the Jewish people from antisemitism?

Would you say that Jews had a secure life in Europe during the previous centuries?
Would you say that being a member of a Jewish minority enabled the Jews to celebrate their faith freely and safely?
Would you say that they were safe from pogroms, draconian laws tailored to limit their social and political possibilities, or simply from an all out open genocide in broad day light, often sanctioned by church and state?
If you answer no (even to a couple of the above), you can see how establishing a Jewish majority state solved many of these issues, where they govern themselves, and where their traditions are not alien but instead are mainstream.

 

[Meow Mix]

Israel is not the State of Judaism, it is the state of the Jewish people. Founded not on religion, but on Peopleood.
As far as religion goes Israel is officially a secular state, however like many other officially secular states (perhaps most), religion still plays part in society and politics.
Israel is a Jewish state in the same sense that Japan is a 'Japanese state'.


The same way French constitute a majority in France, or Greeks constitute a majority in Greece. I am sure that neither one of these two nations wishes to relinquish a dominant majority of French or Greeks.


In the most basic sense, Zionism is the idea of a homeland for the Jewish people, where they can express their social traits and their long held traditions not as a minority anymore, but freely. It's something our grandparents and sometimes our parents didn't have, as they always lived as an endangered minority, often a persecuted minority.


Israel has freedom of expression of all faiths, it just so happens that just like there is a dominant Hindu faith and culture in India, Judaism is the dominant faith in Israel. Also it's important to note that I don't see anything being said about religion in the quote you provided.

To give some sense of history to appreciate the reality of a Jewish state we need to look at the modern history of the Middle East. With the move of the colonial forces out of the Middle East, borders were drawn (sometimes arbitrarily) and dozens of states were formed. All of these new states had an Arab Muslim majority, except one nation which had a Jewish majority (and perhaps Lebanon which had a Christian majority but no more).
Today there are 22 Arab majority states, and one Jewish state. And if we wish to discuss religion, then there are over 50 Muslim majority states, and only one Jewish state.
Politically speaking, reality has proven that the Jewish state has been the stable of all the newly formed states in the Middle East. Not only by providing a multiparty political system, but also as we can see, nations around Israel are torn with sectarian violence, even between Muslim sects. On the other hand, Israel has been able to absorb millions of Jewish refugees from Europe and the Middle East and still form a functioning society. No coups in Israel, no civil wars between Jews, no revolutions, no dictatorships. All nations which border Israel (Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) experienced civil wars, revolutions, coups and a long tradition of dictatorships. Considering the history and current affairs in the region, while still in need to work out many issues, the Jewish state has proved to be able to take on many challenges and come out in good condition out of it. The idea of a Jewish homeland has proved to be functional and also compatible with democracy in a region where democracy is a scarce commodity.

As with the other responses, thank you for clearing this up for me. I'm far more comfortable with this notion than what I feared.

 

[Caladan]

I think the difference between the Native Americans, Tibetans, French, Poles, even arguably Americans and so on is that those titles aren't also used to describe religions: for instance, (not to pick on you Mormons, this is just a hypothetical) it would be silly to say there should be a "Mormon State," and I think people get confused by the possibly religious (as opposed to ethnic) connotations of the term "Jewish State."

I think part of the confusion is that people see Jews in their country as part of a minority religion. But throughout history Jews have seen themselves and were seen by others as a people, even a nation.
There were historical Jewish Kingdoms in antiquity, they minted their own coins, crowned their own kings, and had a capital.
Judah (sometimes Judea) was a Kingdom, a geographical region, a nation, and sometimes all of the above embodied in one. The name of the religion, 'Judaism' itself comes from the name of a tribe, a kingdom, perhaps also a region.

 

[LuisDantas]

Would you say that Jews had a secure life in Europe during the previous centuries?

No, of course not.

Would you say that being a member of a Jewish minority enabled the Jews to celebrate their faith freely and safely?

No.

Would you say that they were safe from pogroms, draconian laws tailored to limit their social and political possibilities, or simply from an all out open genocide in broad day light, often sanctioned by church and state?

No. I will however say that they seem to be safe now, regardless of whether there is a Jewish state.

If you answer no (even to a couple of the above), you can see how establishing a Jewish majority state solved many of these issues, where they govern themselves, and where their traditions are not alien but instead are mainstream.

Sorry, I just don't see the connection. Appealing, it probably is, at least to some. Necessary, however? No. It may well be counterproductive, even.

 

[Caladan]

As with the other responses, thank you for clearing this up for me. I'm far more comfortable with this notion than what I feared.

I can understand how the lines can seem blurred when you have a group of people with so many markers. But one has to understand that Jewish history is very ancient, and the society itself has undergone plenty of transformations.
The group has distinct markers like common dialects and a language, some say even genetic commonalities between Jews from different parts of the world, but also the baggage of thousands of years of traditions which come from the Jewish faith. I guess the only way I can try to illustrate it is that at some point in history the native religion of the Tibetan people was the Bon religion, but they converted to Buddhism. Unlike the Tibetans, the Jews remained with their ancestral and native faith.
If we look at history many historical people and also nations changed religion en masse, but Judaism is still alive. Because of various combinations of the above, many people came to see the term Jew as someone who is a member of a religion, but throughout history (long history) the religion was the native faith of a Kingdom, a culture, nation, and a region.

 

[Caladan]

No. I will however say that they seem to be safe now, regardless of whether there is a Jewish state.

I would say that some parts of the world, in particular Europe or the 'West' collectively is largely a safer place today. Today it is safer to be Jewish in Germany or France, but the strong motivation to form a Jewish state came about in a time in which Jews were the collective punching bag and scapegoat of Europe.
In addition, safer doesn't mean comfort. Today perhaps it is much safer to live as a Jew, but there are other factors: One it is not always comfortable. Sometimes Jews still suffer from antagonizing, sometimes to the point of being advised to hide any external marks that give away the fact that they are Jewish. And mind you I am still discussing 21st century Europe. In Israel, no body judges you for celebrating Hannuka instead of Christmas, no one minds if you are wearing a Star of David, you don't need to struggle to eat Kosher. There are practically thousands of reasons why a Jewish state is a good thing for Jews.

Sorry, I just don't see the connection. Appealing, it probably is, at least to some. Necessary, however? No. It may well be counterproductive, even.

So what would be a pragmatic historical solution? I mean something functional and not just an ideal solution.

 

[Alceste]

I appreciate the thoughtful posts in this thread. The context and reasoning behind Zionism and the desire for a Jewish state is completely understandable. I do have pragmatic concerns, though, relating to how exactly Israel intends to maintain a Jewish majority, and where exactly they want the borders to be. I think if the expansion into Palestine and the intolerable conditions for Palestinian refugees reversed, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the Zionist cause. What is the reasoning behind the settlement activity, and why won't Israel accept its original borders?