Annexing West Bank

[Coyote]

What a stupid thing to say.

Yet several people agree. Just my opinion based on your and Tinmores posts.

Link to a post of mine then.

Stupid people tend to agree with stupid posts. Yet they never seem to be able to support their claims.

Why should I go an extra step and answer you when you continuously avoid my questions?

I have answered more of your questions then you ever answer of mine. I will chalk this up to just another unfounded claim on your part.

Have you? You just now responded to the most recent one. So we will politely agree to disagree.

I just now got on line. Haven't you figured out that I am not here 24/7? And I am leaving in five.

 

[Indeependent]

Because the settlement program did not exist prior to that event.

True only if you continue to frame "settlement" as applying uniquely to Jews/Israelis.

Example:

In 1931 two farmer families purchase land in what will become Area C and each family builds a village. One is Jewish. One is Arab.

In 1948 the Jews are expelled from their village. In 1967 the Arabs are expelled from their village.

Why is it that when the Jews return to their village, they are "settlers" building a "settlement" (with all the negative connotation which has been added to that word over time and has come to specifically mean Jews)?

And yet Arabs are "returning" or "liberating" land which "belongs" to them?


Example:

The JEWISH QUARTER of Jerusalem is considered a "settlement" in "occupied East Jerusalem". The JEWISH QUARTER.

Because it IS in this case - and it isn't how I define - it is how ISRAEL defines it.

How many Arab settlements have been built since Israel occupied the land? - and yes, at that time occupation was the correct term and the term used by the Israeli's themselves.

Not all or even most of those settlements exist on land previously owned by expelled Jews. You also forget - Palestinians were expelled. Where is their right to create settlements if we are going to be defining it so broadly as to be meaningless? How far back do you go ousting people? If you go back far enough everyone has a right to be there.

Settlements has a meaning and it doesn't have to be Jewish. But it does have to have a real definition, not just a convenient one. It's based on a program - a program with a religiously ordained purpose in this case, but it could be ethnic as well (such as what the Russians did) - of the deliberate settling of people in a region taken in war and under occupation and only that people. It is a program with an intent and typically government support with a motive of securing the territory. Not just people wandering in and moving in during natural migrations. In this case only ONE group gets to create settlements (unless you can give me an actual number of Arab settlements built since the territory was occupied).

It isn't about "right of return" it's about a specific program which has a direct impact on a two state solution. You can keep pretending it doesn't, but it isn't really up to the Jews to claim it doesn't, it's up to the Palestinians to determine whether or not settlements have an effect on the peace process. Just like the Palestinians can't claim "right of return" and Israel having to take in uptillion Palistinians should have no effect on the peace process. It does. From Israel's point of view, it's not up to the Palestinians to say what effects the peace process for the Israeli's.

They weren’t expelled; they ran to the West Bank of Jordan.
Jordan won’t let them come any further east.
The bottom line is that Jordan lost that land in war and in 2019, Israel is no longer taking bullshit from the UN.
No matter what your feelings tell you.

It has nothing to do with my feelings but rather historical records as opposed to popular propoganda.

What historical records?
Any Links?

 

[Coyote]

Because the settlement program did not exist prior to that event.

True only if you continue to frame "settlement" as applying uniquely to Jews/Israelis.

Example:

In 1931 two farmer families purchase land in what will become Area C and each family builds a village. One is Jewish. One is Arab.

In 1948 the Jews are expelled from their village. In 1967 the Arabs are expelled from their village.

Why is it that when the Jews return to their village, they are "settlers" building a "settlement" (with all the negative connotation which has been added to that word over time and has come to specifically mean Jews)?

And yet Arabs are "returning" or "liberating" land which "belongs" to them?


Example:

The JEWISH QUARTER of Jerusalem is considered a "settlement" in "occupied East Jerusalem". The JEWISH QUARTER.

Because it IS in this case - and it isn't how I define - it is how ISRAEL defines it.

How many Arab settlements have been built since Israel occupied the land? - and yes, at that time occupation was the correct term and the term used by the Israeli's themselves.

Not all or even most of those settlements exist on land previously owned by expelled Jews. You also forget - Palestinians were expelled. Where is their right to create settlements if we are going to be defining it so broadly as to be meaningless? How far back do you go ousting people? If you go back far enough everyone has a right to be there.

Settlements has a meaning and it doesn't have to be Jewish. But it does have to have a real definition, not just a convenient one. It's based on a program - a program with a religiously ordained purpose in this case, but it could be ethnic as well (such as what the Russians did) - of the deliberate settling of people in a region taken in war and under occupation and only that people. It is a program with an intent and typically government support with a motive of securing the territory. Not just people wandering in and moving in during natural migrations. In this case only ONE group gets to create settlements (unless you can give me an actual number of Arab settlements built since the territory was occupied).

It isn't about "right of return" it's about a specific program which has a direct impact on a two state solution. You can keep pretending it doesn't, but it isn't really up to the Jews to claim it doesn't, it's up to the Palestinians to determine whether or not settlements have an effect on the peace process. Just like the Palestinians can't claim "right of return" and Israel having to take in uptillion Palistinians should have no effect on the peace process. It does. From Israel's point of view, it's not up to the Palestinians to say what effects the peace process for the Israeli's.

What would your solution be? Please share.

Solution to what specifically?

To the debate of what should happen to end the conflict of Israel vs. Palestine.

Tinmore wants the end of Israel and I say "Palestinians" should leave for one of the other 50+ Islamic countries. What would your solution be?

Well...I've answered that a number of different times in general threads. No forced expulsions, especially not so Israel can conveniently take their land without the inconvenience of it's people. I think some sort of federation with the West Bank is the likely answer assuming the Palestinians can get their act together. A federation ensures a certain amount of autonomy, rights and representative government for each side, and an a seat at the table for national issues that isn't dependent on population proportions - then demographics aren't such a problem. Gaza would be a seperate problem to deal with.

 

[Coyote]

Because the settlement program did not exist prior to that event.

True only if you continue to frame "settlement" as applying uniquely to Jews/Israelis.

Example:

In 1931 two farmer families purchase land in what will become Area C and each family builds a village. One is Jewish. One is Arab.

In 1948 the Jews are expelled from their village. In 1967 the Arabs are expelled from their village.

Why is it that when the Jews return to their village, they are "settlers" building a "settlement" (with all the negative connotation which has been added to that word over time and has come to specifically mean Jews)?

And yet Arabs are "returning" or "liberating" land which "belongs" to them?


Example:

The JEWISH QUARTER of Jerusalem is considered a "settlement" in "occupied East Jerusalem". The JEWISH QUARTER.

Because it IS in this case - and it isn't how I define - it is how ISRAEL defines it.

How many Arab settlements have been built since Israel occupied the land? - and yes, at that time occupation was the correct term and the term used by the Israeli's themselves.

Not all or even most of those settlements exist on land previously owned by expelled Jews. You also forget - Palestinians were expelled. Where is their right to create settlements if we are going to be defining it so broadly as to be meaningless? How far back do you go ousting people? If you go back far enough everyone has a right to be there.

Settlements has a meaning and it doesn't have to be Jewish. But it does have to have a real definition, not just a convenient one. It's based on a program - a program with a religiously ordained purpose in this case, but it could be ethnic as well (such as what the Russians did) - of the deliberate settling of people in a region taken in war and under occupation and only that people. It is a program with an intent and typically government support with a motive of securing the territory. Not just people wandering in and moving in during natural migrations. In this case only ONE group gets to create settlements (unless you can give me an actual number of Arab settlements built since the territory was occupied).

It isn't about "right of return" it's about a specific program which has a direct impact on a two state solution. You can keep pretending it doesn't, but it isn't really up to the Jews to claim it doesn't, it's up to the Palestinians to determine whether or not settlements have an effect on the peace process. Just like the Palestinians can't claim "right of return" and Israel having to take in uptillion Palistinians should have no effect on the peace process. It does. From Israel's point of view, it's not up to the Palestinians to say what effects the peace process for the Israeli's.

They weren’t expelled; they ran to the West Bank of Jordan.
Jordan won’t let them come any further east.
The bottom line is that Jordan lost that land in war and in 2019, Israel is no longer taking bullshit from the UN.
No matter what your feelings tell you.

It has nothing to do with my feelings but rather historical records as opposed to popular propoganda.

What historical records?
Any Links?

Google is your friend. The problem is I'm going to derail the thread if I do.

 

[rylah]

There's No Demographic Problem

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yet several people agree. Just my opinion based on your and Tinmores posts.

Link to a post of mine then.

Stupid people tend to agree with stupid posts. Yet they never seem to be able to support their claims.

Why should I go an extra step and answer you when you continuously avoid my questions?

I have answered more of your questions then you ever answer of mine. I will chalk this up to just another unfounded claim on your part.

Have you? You just now responded to the most recent one. So we will politely agree to disagree.

I just now got on line. Haven't you figured out that I am not here 24/7? And I am leaving in five.

OK

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

True only if you continue to frame "settlement" as applying uniquely to Jews/Israelis.

Example:

In 1931 two farmer families purchase land in what will become Area C and each family builds a village. One is Jewish. One is Arab.

In 1948 the Jews are expelled from their village. In 1967 the Arabs are expelled from their village.

Why is it that when the Jews return to their village, they are "settlers" building a "settlement" (with all the negative connotation which has been added to that word over time and has come to specifically mean Jews)?

And yet Arabs are "returning" or "liberating" land which "belongs" to them?


Example:

The JEWISH QUARTER of Jerusalem is considered a "settlement" in "occupied East Jerusalem". The JEWISH QUARTER.

Because it IS in this case - and it isn't how I define - it is how ISRAEL defines it.

How many Arab settlements have been built since Israel occupied the land? - and yes, at that time occupation was the correct term and the term used by the Israeli's themselves.

Not all or even most of those settlements exist on land previously owned by expelled Jews. You also forget - Palestinians were expelled. Where is their right to create settlements if we are going to be defining it so broadly as to be meaningless? How far back do you go ousting people? If you go back far enough everyone has a right to be there.

Settlements has a meaning and it doesn't have to be Jewish. But it does have to have a real definition, not just a convenient one. It's based on a program - a program with a religiously ordained purpose in this case, but it could be ethnic as well (such as what the Russians did) - of the deliberate settling of people in a region taken in war and under occupation and only that people. It is a program with an intent and typically government support with a motive of securing the territory. Not just people wandering in and moving in during natural migrations. In this case only ONE group gets to create settlements (unless you can give me an actual number of Arab settlements built since the territory was occupied).

It isn't about "right of return" it's about a specific program which has a direct impact on a two state solution. You can keep pretending it doesn't, but it isn't really up to the Jews to claim it doesn't, it's up to the Palestinians to determine whether or not settlements have an effect on the peace process. Just like the Palestinians can't claim "right of return" and Israel having to take in uptillion Palistinians should have no effect on the peace process. It does. From Israel's point of view, it's not up to the Palestinians to say what effects the peace process for the Israeli's.

What would your solution be? Please share.

Solution to what specifically?

To the debate of what should happen to end the conflict of Israel vs. Palestine.

Tinmore wants the end of Israel and I say "Palestinians" should leave for one of the other 50+ Islamic countries. What would your solution be?

Well...I've answered that a number of different times in general threads. No forced expulsions, especially not so Israel can conveniently take their land without the inconvenience of it's people. I think some sort of federation with the West Bank is the likely answer assuming the Palestinians can get their act together. A federation ensures a certain amount of autonomy, rights and representative government for each side, and an a seat at the table for national issues that isn't dependent on population proportions - then demographics aren't such a problem. Gaza would be a seperate problem to deal with.

??? What makes you believe that Hamas and Fatah will get their act together ???

What you call "inconvenience" I call an imminent threat

 

[Indeependent]

True only if you continue to frame "settlement" as applying uniquely to Jews/Israelis.

Example:

In 1931 two farmer families purchase land in what will become Area C and each family builds a village. One is Jewish. One is Arab.

In 1948 the Jews are expelled from their village. In 1967 the Arabs are expelled from their village.

Why is it that when the Jews return to their village, they are "settlers" building a "settlement" (with all the negative connotation which has been added to that word over time and has come to specifically mean Jews)?

And yet Arabs are "returning" or "liberating" land which "belongs" to them?


Example:

The JEWISH QUARTER of Jerusalem is considered a "settlement" in "occupied East Jerusalem". The JEWISH QUARTER.

Because it IS in this case - and it isn't how I define - it is how ISRAEL defines it.

How many Arab settlements have been built since Israel occupied the land? - and yes, at that time occupation was the correct term and the term used by the Israeli's themselves.

Not all or even most of those settlements exist on land previously owned by expelled Jews. You also forget - Palestinians were expelled. Where is their right to create settlements if we are going to be defining it so broadly as to be meaningless? How far back do you go ousting people? If you go back far enough everyone has a right to be there.

Settlements has a meaning and it doesn't have to be Jewish. But it does have to have a real definition, not just a convenient one. It's based on a program - a program with a religiously ordained purpose in this case, but it could be ethnic as well (such as what the Russians did) - of the deliberate settling of people in a region taken in war and under occupation and only that people. It is a program with an intent and typically government support with a motive of securing the territory. Not just people wandering in and moving in during natural migrations. In this case only ONE group gets to create settlements (unless you can give me an actual number of Arab settlements built since the territory was occupied).

It isn't about "right of return" it's about a specific program which has a direct impact on a two state solution. You can keep pretending it doesn't, but it isn't really up to the Jews to claim it doesn't, it's up to the Palestinians to determine whether or not settlements have an effect on the peace process. Just like the Palestinians can't claim "right of return" and Israel having to take in uptillion Palistinians should have no effect on the peace process. It does. From Israel's point of view, it's not up to the Palestinians to say what effects the peace process for the Israeli's.

They weren’t expelled; they ran to the West Bank of Jordan.
Jordan won’t let them come any further east.
The bottom line is that Jordan lost that land in war and in 2019, Israel is no longer taking bullshit from the UN.
No matter what your feelings tell you.

It has nothing to do with my feelings but rather historical records as opposed to popular propoganda.

What historical records?
Any Links?

Google is your friend. The problem is I'm going to derail the thread if I do.

Google will accommodate me with Muslim sites that will agree with you.
I would appreciate knowing 3 sites that you approve of.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ rylah, et al,

I think that if anyone has not watched this video provided by our friend "rylah," then take a few minutes to see it. It is well worth the time.

Caroline Glick: Prospects of Israeli Sovereignty

(COMMENT)

I find myself caught in a sort-of "Catch 22" by the recent developments in Israeli political developments. I agree, there are some serious flaws in some of the positions that are being taken what must be agreed upon if one is to be a pro-Israeli.

I find that I don't understand what it means to be in support of the pro-Israeli position; because I don't understand it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

RE: Annexing West Bank
⁜→ rylah, et al,

I think that if anyone has not watched this video provided by our friend "rylah," then take a few minutes to see it. It is well worth the time.

Caroline Glick: Prospects of Israeli Sovereignty

(COMMENT)

I find myself caught in a sort-of "Catch 22" by the recent developments in Israeli political developments. I agree, there are some serious flaws in some of the positions that are being taken what must be agreed upon if one is to be a pro-Israeli.

I find that I don't understand what it means to be in support of the pro-Israeli position; because I don't understand it.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is the catch? What is unclear?

Indeed, in spite of commonly visible faces from the Baby Boom generation, the country has grown younger and created a significant shift in politics. The old powerful parties that lead the country at the beginning totally diminished in mandates with the recent elections, the left moved center and the religious Zionist parties by being the main punch-bag started to turn the tense focus to unite the nation, especially because they were at the position to challenge both sides, with a growing support from the youth.

The left and right were and still are very divided, while religious Zionist parties manage to find common ground with both sides.

They literally just started talking about sovereignty and in no time it has already become mainstream not only inside the country but on the international arena as well.

Another central issue that they've brought to the mainstream of the current Israeli politics , and I must say with great courage, is the regulation of the boundaries between the judicial and governing bodies.
A theme that is commonly discussed and criticized in western democracies but was virtually made taboo by Aharon Barak judiciary revolution, that basically increased the power of the HJC over the Knesset, enabling it to reach into spheres where it was not authorized so by the representatives of the voters. The HJC has become the least trusted government body to say it gently, and seen as an elitist group of unelected judges appointed by other judges, with clear political bias and social layer, unbound by application from the Knesset and overreaching to an unbearable extent against majority opinion.
As far as I understand it, the direction is towards a more regulated choice of judges by the Knesset.

These two themes were at the center of the elections. And frankly the conduct of the elections was a pinnacle of how far the court got politicized and reaching.

The nation is getting younger, more conservative, and their electoral power is growing. The religious Zionist block who don't vote directly for Likud (a great portion do), if not for sudden strategically unwise split by the New Right, would be the 3rd largest party in the coalition after the Orthodox Aguda/Shas for whom both Arabs and religious Zionists vote on a regular basis.

We are indeed seeing a clear shift in the lexicon, demographics and public opinion contradicting the previous positions of the old generation.
Nothing new goes on the left nothing new on the right, nothing new on the secular or orthodox political spectrum, lots of optics and same old arguments. While there're actually young folks who're busy planting and building Judea, while the left and the right divide the nation.

Hope that didn't confuse You more.
Basic idea - look at the youth.

 

[Indeependent]

Young Jews are proud Israelis; no apologies necessary.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because the majority of the pop consists of filthy Jews...Coyote and Tinmore won’t say it but IMO they think it.

What a stupid thing to say.

Yet several people agree. Just my opinion based on your and Tinmores posts.

Link to a post of mine then.

Stupid people tend to agree with stupid posts. Yet they never seem to be able to support their claims.

We agree on this one. The tendency to pile on with agreement when nobody is supporting their opinions is a sad fact on message boards. You and I can disagree on Palestine and Israel, but the fact that you sympathize with the Palestinians in no may means that you hate the Jews as has been suggested. I find that extrapolation to be ridiculous.

And the fact that I think the Palestinians have refused myriad opportunities to compromise on a peace plan and/or have violated agreements and they have pretty well forfeited their claim to that land does not mean I hate the Palestinians.

The best solution now is for the UN to find and buy a nice piece of land approximately the size of Israel and move the Palestinians there. Islam will never agree to that, however, as it would remove their ability to use the Palestinians for political purposes in their ultimate goal which is to destroy Israel and the Jews.

 

[rylah]

Regavim's First Quarterly Update for 2019

In just 2 minutes, a taste of Regavim's achievements in the first 3 months of 2019.


Regavim - Protecting our National Lands

 

[rylah]

Levy Report translated into English
Regavim is happy to announce the completion of the English translation of the Levy Commission Report. Especially in today’s challenging environment and as a major contributor to the commission we felt it was important for the details of the Levy Report to be available to as wide an audience as possible. We especially want to thank publicly the anonymous donor who made it possible.

https://www.regavim.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Levy-Commission-Report-on-the-Legal-Status-of-Building-in-Judea-and-Samaria2.pdf

 

[Foxfyre]

Levy Report translated into English
Regavim is happy to announce the completion of the English translation of the Levy Commission Report. Especially in today’s challenging environment and as a major contributor to the commission we felt it was important for the details of the Levy Report to be available to as wide an audience as possible. We especially want to thank publicly the anonymous donor who made it possible.

https://www.regavim.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Levy-Commission-Report-on-the-Legal-Status-of-Building-in-Judea-and-Samaria2.pdf

Is there somewhere to get a summary of the basic conclusions so we don't have to read 75 single spaced pages with subtitles that don't inform us much?

 

[Indeependent]

Because it IS in this case - and it isn't how I define - it is how ISRAEL defines it.

How many Arab settlements have been built since Israel occupied the land? - and yes, at that time occupation was the correct term and the term used by the Israeli's themselves.

Not all or even most of those settlements exist on land previously owned by expelled Jews. You also forget - Palestinians were expelled. Where is their right to create settlements if we are going to be defining it so broadly as to be meaningless? How far back do you go ousting people? If you go back far enough everyone has a right to be there.

Settlements has a meaning and it doesn't have to be Jewish. But it does have to have a real definition, not just a convenient one. It's based on a program - a program with a religiously ordained purpose in this case, but it could be ethnic as well (such as what the Russians did) - of the deliberate settling of people in a region taken in war and under occupation and only that people. It is a program with an intent and typically government support with a motive of securing the territory. Not just people wandering in and moving in during natural migrations. In this case only ONE group gets to create settlements (unless you can give me an actual number of Arab settlements built since the territory was occupied).

It isn't about "right of return" it's about a specific program which has a direct impact on a two state solution. You can keep pretending it doesn't, but it isn't really up to the Jews to claim it doesn't, it's up to the Palestinians to determine whether or not settlements have an effect on the peace process. Just like the Palestinians can't claim "right of return" and Israel having to take in uptillion Palistinians should have no effect on the peace process. It does. From Israel's point of view, it's not up to the Palestinians to say what effects the peace process for the Israeli's.

They weren’t expelled; they ran to the West Bank of Jordan.
Jordan won’t let them come any further east.
The bottom line is that Jordan lost that land in war and in 2019, Israel is no longer taking bullshit from the UN.
No matter what your feelings tell you.

It has nothing to do with my feelings but rather historical records as opposed to popular propoganda.

What historical records?
Any Links?

Google is your friend. The problem is I'm going to derail the thread if I do.

Google will accommodate me with Muslim sites that will agree with you.
I would appreciate knowing 3 sites that you approve of.

It appears as though Coyote uses Arab sites for her “facts”.

 

[Sixties Fan]

A two-state solution is not possible with the PLO as it currently exists. They have spent their entire time since Oslo working not to build a state but to destroy one. But maybe, down the road, a Palestinian leadership that no longer fantasizes about destroying Israel can arise. The only way that scenario is remotely possible is if they accept that Israel is not going anywhere, and the only way that could happen is by Israel asserting its rights in a consistent, unapologetic and unflinching way.

Annexation of areas that are unquestioningly going to be part of Israel is more likely to bring peace than pretending that Gush Etzion is on the table could ever do.

And guess what? When Israel acts with pride rather than pandering to liberal American Jewish leaders who are in turn pandering to the New York Times, American Jews who are actually proud of their Jewishness will support them. If these liberal groups want to help Israel, they need to instill pride in their flocks, both in Judaism and in Zionism. These leaders need to learn how to answer the questions that Israel's critics hurl at the Jewish state without acting like frightened shtetl Jews. A big reason Israel is losing the support of young American Jews is because their own Jewish role models are too ignorant or cowed to proudly support Israel unequivocally, and to explain why Israel does what it does.

(full article online)

Why liberal Jews opposing annexing settlement blocs are wrong ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/dont-worry-about-what-the-neighbors-might-think/

 

[Coyote]

Because the majority of the pop consists of filthy Jews...Coyote and Tinmore won’t say it but IMO they think it.

What a stupid thing to say.

Yet several people agree. Just my opinion based on your and Tinmores posts.

Link to a post of mine then.

Stupid people tend to agree with stupid posts. Yet they never seem to be able to support their claims.

We agree on this one. The tendency to pile on with agreement when nobody is supporting their opinions is a sad fact on message boards. You and I can disagree on Palestine and Israel, but the fact that you sympathize with the Palestinians in no may means that you hate the Jews as has been suggested. I find that extrapolation to be ridiculous.

And the fact that I think the Palestinians have refused myriad opportunities to compromise on a peace plan and/or have violated agreements and they have pretty well forfeited their claim to that land does not mean I hate the Palestinians.

The best solution now is for the UN to find and buy a nice piece of land approximately the size of Israel and move the Palestinians there. Islam will never agree to that, however, as it would remove their ability to use the Palestinians for political purposes in their ultimate goal which is to destroy Israel and the Jews.

Foxie, you can not forceably move millians of people who have roots, families and ties to that region going back hundreds if not thousands of years. It isnt a question of whether Islam would accept but it but whether any decent human being could accept it.

 

[Coyote]

A two-state solution is not possible with the PLO as it currently exists. They have spent their entire time since Oslo working not to build a state but to destroy one. But maybe, down the road, a Palestinian leadership that no longer fantasizes about destroying Israel can arise. The only way that scenario is remotely possible is if they accept that Israel is not going anywhere, and the only way that could happen is by Israel asserting its rights in a consistent, unapologetic and unflinching way.

Annexation of areas that are unquestioningly going to be part of Israel is more likely to bring peace than pretending that Gush Etzion is on the table could ever do.

And guess what? When Israel acts with pride rather than pandering to liberal American Jewish leaders who are in turn pandering to the New York Times, American Jews who are actually proud of their Jewishness will support them. If these liberal groups want to help Israel, they need to instill pride in their flocks, both in Judaism and in Zionism. These leaders need to learn how to answer the questions that Israel's critics hurl at the Jewish state without acting like frightened shtetl Jews. A big reason Israel is losing the support of young American Jews is because their own Jewish role models are too ignorant or cowed to proudly support Israel unequivocally, and to explain why Israel does what it does.

(full article online)

Why liberal Jews opposing annexing settlement blocs are wrong ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Or maybe Israel is losing Jewish support because Jews, like any other diverse demographic group are capable of thinking for themselves.