In article <1483500352@igc.apc.org>, Center for Policy Research <cpr@igc.apc.org> writes: |>  |> From: Center for Policy Research <cpr> |> Subject: rejoinder. Questions to Israelis |>  |>  |> To:  shaig@Think.COM |>  |> Subject: Ten questions to Israelis |>  |> Dear Shai, |>  |> In the answer to my first question, concerning the nonexistence of |> Israeli nationality, your answer conflicts with information I have |> received from other quarters, according to which there are two |> distinct categories of classifying Israelis:  Citizenship |> (Ezrahut) and Nationality (Le'um). The former is used on passports |> etc, and the later for daily identification in Israeli society. I |> am told that people in Israel have to carry their ID cards at all |> times and present them at many public places, almost every day. |> These ID cards make clear who the holder is, a Jew or an Arab. |> You maintain that this mainly because of religious services |> provided. But do you really believe that this is the reason ? |> Could you provide evidence that this is the case and that it |> serves no other purpose ?  A number of points.  You are making assumptions about the manner in which the cards are used.  True, by law, all residents, citizens, and tourists must carry a form of identification with them.  For citizens, the standard ID is the ID card.  The purpose this serves on a daily basis, wherein they are presented at public places, is for the purpose of identifying the bearer.  This takes place in banks (cashing checks), post offices (registered mail and such), etc... Quite frankly, it was rare that I ever had to present my ID card for such activities more than once per week.  There is no law or requirement that forces people to wave their ID cards in public. Furthermore, none of the services I outlined discriminate against the bearer in any manner by having access to this information.  The only case that I can think of in which the Le'um field might be taken into account is during interaction with the police, based upon the scenario.  In general though, arab citizens are clearly recognizable, as are non-arabs. Your argument therefore becomes moot unless you can provide an example of how this field is being used to discriminate against them officially.   |> In the answer to my second questions, concerning the fact that |> Israel has no fixed borders, you state that Israel's borders were |> 'shaped and reshaped by both war and peace'. According to what I |> read, the first Zionists in the beginning of the Century, had |> plans for the Jewish State to extend into what is Lebanon and into |> Transjordan (Jordan). I also read that it was the express wish of |> Ben-Gurion to not declare Israel's borders, when Israel was |> established, as this might restrict Israel's opportunities for |> later expansion. Israel often claims it right of existence on the |> fact that Jews lived there 2000 years ago or that God promised the |> land to them. But according to biblical sources, the area God |> promised would extend all the way to Iraq. And what were the |> borders in biblical times which Israel considers proper to use |> today ?  Finally, if Israel wants peace, why can't it declare what |> it considers its legitimate and secure borders, which might be a |> base for negotiations? Having all the above facts in mind, one |> cannot blame Arab countries to fear Israeli expansionism, as a |> number of wars have proved (1948, 1956, 1967, 1982).  I take issue with your assertions.  I think that Arab countries do know that they have nothing to fear from "Israeli expansionism". Militarily, Israel is not capable of holding onto large tracts of land under occupation to a hostile, armed, and insurgent population for a sustained period of time.  As is, the intifada is heavily taxing the Israeli economy.  Proof of this can be seen in the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.  Israeli troops pulled back from the Awali, and later from the Litani, in order to control the minimal strip needed to keep towns out of range of Katyusha missile fire. Public opinion in Israel has turned towards settling the intifada via territorial concessions.  The Israel public is sufferring from battle fatigue of sorts and the gov't is aware of it.  With regards to borders, let me state the following.  I may not agree with the manner in which negotiations are being held, however the crux of the matter is that everyone either makes or refrains from stating a starting position.  The arab parties have called for total withdrawal and a return to pre-48 borders.  If Israel were to state large borders, the negotiations might never get under way.  If Israel were to state smaller borders, then the arab countries might try and force even smaller borders during the negotiations.  I think that leaving the matter to be settled by negotiations and peace treaties is infinitely more realistic and sensible.  |> Your answer to my third question is typical of a Stalinist public |> official. I don't think your answer is honest.  You refer me to |> Vanunu's revelations about Israel's nuclear arsenal without |> evaluating the truthfullness of his revelations. Now if he said |> the truth, then why should he been punished, and if he lied, why |> should he be punished? I would appreciate more honesty.  Your statement is typical of the simple minded naivety of a "center for policy research".  Whether or not all of Vanunu's revelations were true has no bearing on the fact that some were.  For disclosing "state secrets" after having signed contracts and forms with the understanding that said secrets are not to be made public, one should be punished. As to which were and which weren't, I am under no moral obligation to disclose that - quite the reverse in fact. He was taken to court, tried, and found guilty.  You may take issue with a number of things but clearly you have no understanding of the concept of "Secrets of state", something which every democratic govt has.  |> Somebody provided an answer to the fourth question, concerning |> 'hidden prisoners' in Israeli prisons. He posted an article from |> Ma'ariv documenting such cases.  It seems that such prisoners do |> exist in Israel. What do you think about that ?  I noticed that he was documenting the fact that such prisoners could exist more than he documented the fact that they do exist.  The CLU noted, which you evidently did not pay attention to, that they know of no such reports or cases.  I am sorry to tell you but in a country of 4 mill, as tightly knit as Israel, even if the matter of the arrest was not made public, within a relatively short time frame, most people would know about it.  My own feelings are that the matter of the arrest should be made public unless a court order is issued allowing a delay of X hours. This would be granted only if a judge could be convinced that an announcement would cause irreparable harm to the ongoing investigation.  |> You imply that my questions show bias and are formulated in such a |> way to 'cast aspersions upon Israel'. Such terms have often been |> used by the Soviet Union against dissidents: They call the Soviet |> Union into disrepute. If my questions are not disturbing, they |> would not call forth such hysterical answers. My questions are |> clearly provocative but they are meant to seek facts. I would be |> very happy if you could convince me that what I am told about |> Israel were just fabrications, but alas you have failed to do so. |> I suspect that you fear the truth and an open and honest |> discussion. This is a sign of weakness, not of strength.  Well, I am sorry to say that your questions are slanted.  Such questions are often termed "tabloid journalism" and are not disturbing because they avoid any attempt at objectivity. Such questions were often used during the McCarthy era as a basis for the witch-hunts that took place then.  To use your own example, these questions might have been lifted from the format used by Stalinist prosecutors that were looking for small bits of evidence that they could distort and portray as a larger and dirtier picture.  My answers were not any more "hysterical" than the questions themselves.  The problem is not that the q's were provocative, it was that they were selective in their fact seeking.  You fall into the same category of those who seek "yes" "no" answers when the real answer is "of sorts". I suspect that as long as the answers to these questions is not an unequivocal NO, you would remain unsatified and choose to interprete them as you see fit.  A sign of strength is the ability to look You remind me of those mistaken environmentalists who once advocated culling wolves because of the cruelty to deer, only to find that they had broken the food chain and wreaked havoc upon the very environment they sought to protect.  The color blindness you exhibit is a true sign of weakness.  |> I hope you will muster the courage to seek the full truth.  Ditto.