A Vital Debate But With Whom?

And who wrote this?

There will be no peace in our world without an understanding of the place of religion within it...

...there are those that insisted that as the Arab revolution knocked over long-established regimes and created movements for democracy, so those societies' religiosity would take second place to the new politics. It hasn't happened. Religion is fundamental to those societies and if anything, in the foreseeable future, will become more so.

And do we seriously think the issue of Jerusalem can be resolved without at least some discussion of its religious significance to all three Abrahamic faiths?

Tony Blair.

And what country fits his bill?

Think:-

Those of us inspired by our faith must have the right to speak out on issues that concern us and in the name of our beliefs...this should lead to a vital debate about the nature of democracy, a debate all the more critical as we witness the Arab revolutions. I find it hard to define democracy by reference to one faith. The essence of democracy is that it is pluralistic. It is inherently secular, even if rooted in cultures that are profoundly religious. This is where democracy-friendly religion really means something very important in the way society is governed. It is about free media; freedom of expression; and about freedom of religion.

Does that outline fit any other country in the Middle East other than Israel?

With whom can Israel debate?

Blair has found the problem, pointed to a solution but nothing can be resolved.

In this situation, should Israel, faced with Temple denial, with identity theft, et al., not to talk about incitement and hostility and ongoing terror, weaken its claims to its national ethos, to its security, to its economic strength?

^