First of all, I apologize for writing in english. I´m in Bolivia at the moment, and hebrew fonts are not very common.

Basically, it is a matter of values. ofcourse that state can choose to associate vital rights with military service, exactly like it does with paying taxes. one simply has to consider the implications - the right to vote is the right to have some (if very limited) control on your life. associating this with military service implies that we are trying to build here a new Sparta, and not a democratic state.

I agree, though I would rather that National Service be added to the list of allowed prerequisites.

Another thing: we should also, by law, disallow carreer military men or women from entering politics for five to ten years after they conclude their service. It will allow them to get acquainted with civilian life - a military-based world-view is not proper for political service.

Well, I think that this is the problem of those opposed, isn't it? If you don't want the right to vote, we can't make you, can we?

And yes, I have heard of the policy in the US - I am not that much of an original thinker.

One thing troubles me, though: When did Colin Powell resign from the military? Is it not less than ten years ago? If so, why was it allowed for him to become a Secretary? Or does the law in the US refer only to elected officials, not appointees?

The arabs never missed a chance to miss a chance.

I would like to ask that you explain your last paragraph, please. I see no problem in the State changing the duties/rights equation, so long that it is balanced. I see it as unbalanced, at the moment, by the way.

But why doesn't the State have the right to demand that its citizens serve it in any manner except for taxes?

In any case, this isn't a matter of demanding that the citizens serve - the service is a prerequisite to voting privileges. No-one is forced to serve; but only if you serve do you get the privilege of voting.

Why is voting a birthright, as you imply? What's wrong with it being a privilege, kept for those who are willing to serve their fellow citizens?

I'm sorry, sir, but you again seem quite arbitrary, to me. Your last paragraph again appears to me quite baseless. Especially since this whole issue is about service to the state, not strictly military service.

If voting is a right of a citizen, then yes, by that definition, citizenship, in my view, should be given only to people who have served the State. Others will have to have a different status, in this case.

In some places voting is an obligation rather then a right. In Australia, for example, voting is compulsory. This applies to municipal, state and federal elections.

You don't understand the situation here at all. Regional peace was a strategic target of the Israeli leadership since before the beginning. If you read some of the writings of our former leaders, such as David Ben-Gurion, you will see it. They write about how we must strike out harshly at any military attempt by our Arab neighbour, so that one day, they will be willing to sit at the negotiation table with us. And lo and behold, it worked! First with the Egyptians, then with the Jordanians. Has it occured to you that it may be our lifting our guards, thinking that all is well with the Palestinians, without actually taking measures to ascertain it, that got us in this sitution?

To conclude: you cannot make peace by yourself. Tango takes two. I'm not sure that the other side wants peace - otherwise, I doubt that we would be in our current position, as Israel has proven more than once that it wants peace.

What makes you think that another country will take you in? Right next door to you, several million Palestinians live in poverty and squalor for over 50 years and no country is rushing to let then in.

Clear and well-known solutions, you say? Care to actually mention any of them?

You may just point me to a discussion in which you've explained them.