babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Israeli Elections - How would you vote?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Israeli Elections - How would you vote?
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 27 March 2006 07:19 PM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This guy would get my vote, despite an unfortunate resemblance to Bruno Gerussi:




Amir Peretz - Labour

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Krago ]


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 27 March 2006 11:05 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently in Israel there are a lot of jokes about Peretz looking like Stalin! I like what he stands for, but I'd vote for Meretz which is even more anti-religious and is even more willing to make territorial compromises.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 27 March 2006 11:38 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd vote for Labor as my first choice. If I felt I couldn't vote for them, I'd either vote Meretz or Hadash(the left-wing Jewish and Arab joint party).

Unfortunately, it looks like Kadima whose basic policy idea is to say to the Palestinians "fuck you, we'll draw the borders ourselves" will probably win.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 02:06 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would vote for the NDA: The International Committee for the dfence of Azmi Bishra

quote:
Now if Zionism cannot do this, then the "two state solution" can more accurately be described as the "Tale of Two States". There will be no two states. The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of the Jewish state. This is not sufficient cause for a Palestinian state. Elements of justice and balance of power must be included. In the current scenario, these elements have no place in the present structure or discourse. If we begin to understand and perceive the situation from the perspective of an "apartheid regime" - something that still remains to be done - and not within the limiting framework of the "1967 occupation", we will start thinking of strategies that lead to liberation of two nationalities in one state.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 28 March 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
I'm a strong Kadima supporter, but given the nutball quotes from Hamas today, I have to wonder if a moderate party will be able to stand up to them:

"'We are asked to recognize Israel. We can do so, but we will not,"

"Do you need anyone to exert pressure? Let Hamas be your pressuring arm,"

"The Koran is our constitution, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of God is our highest aspiration,"

They make the Likud party look like Labour ...


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 28 March 2006 01:12 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagnaf:

"'We are asked to recognize Israel. We can do so, but we will not,"

What's 'nutball' about that? It's a straightforward statement of position--they're not going to recognise Israel unilaterally, except in the context of a comprehensive settlement, which they're signalling is possible.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 28 March 2006 01:18 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

What's 'nutball' about that? It's a straightforward statement of position--they're not going to recognise Israel unilaterally, except in the context of a comprehensive settlement, which they're signalling is possible.


Well, they're signalling SOMETHING with statements like "The Koran is our constitution, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of God is our highest aspiration", but it ain't something peaceful.

Nutball, nutball, nutball.


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 28 March 2006 01:23 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagnaf:

Well, they're signalling SOMETHING with statements like "The Koran is our constitution, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of God is our highest aspiration", but it ain't something peaceful.

Nutball, nutball, nutball.


That wasn't my question, and you know it. WHy did you include the statement I asked about? Or can't you actually see anything 'nutball' about it, either?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 28 March 2006 01:26 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

That wasn't my question, and you know it. WHy did you include the statement I asked about? Or can't you actually see anything 'nutball' about it, either?


In a vacuum I can agree with you; however, when you look at the entire Hamas platform, there's nothing rational about it.

Now please, I invite you to justify the other statements? Or can't you actually see anything rational about them either?


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 28 March 2006 01:48 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagnaf:

Now please, I invite you to justify the other statements? Or can't you actually see anything rational about them either?

Let's do them one by one. What's wrong with "Let Hamas be your pressuring arm"?

You're proposing; you have the burden of proof.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 28 March 2006 02:01 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

Let's do them one by one. What's wrong with "Let Hamas be your pressuring arm"?

You're proposing; you have the burden of proof.


Ok, I'll go with this. Typically, Hamas' method of "pressuring" has been something to the effect of blowing up some form of public transportation.

Disagree? Please cite why. And I can't wait to hear your justification of the third statement ...


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 28 March 2006 02:03 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagnaf:

Ok, I'll go with this. Typically, Hamas' method of "pressuring" has been something to the effect of blowing up some form of public transportation.

Disagree? Please cite why. And I can't wait to hear your justification of the third statement ...


So there's nothing actually in this quote, either, that you can point to as 'nutball'?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 28 March 2006 02:13 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

So there's nothing actually in this quote, either, that you can point to as 'nutball'?


Excuse me? When "pressuring" infers "bombing civilians" (and yes, I can provide a list of victims dating back to shortly after the Hamas charter was penned), it's irrational ... sorry, "nutball".

Now -- the third quote? Come on, I know you can justify it somehow.


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 02:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, he means preassuring by killing civilians.

It used to be frowned upon but since world war two everyone has been doing it. Even Israel. I know that suprises you Lganaf, the Arabs should assert what is apparently the right of all warring parties to kill civilians just as we do, but hey they are cheeky little crocodiles aren't they. Don't know their place.

Tsk tsk.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 28 March 2006 02:34 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, he means preassuring by killing civilians.

It used to be frowned upon but since world war two everyone has been doing it. Even Israel. I know that suprises you Lganaf, the Arabs should assert what is apparently the right of all warring parties to kill civilians just as we do, but hey they are cheeky little crocodiles aren't they. Don't know their place.

Tsk tsk.


I do take Israel's side on rabble; it's only because there's so much polarization the other way here. In truth, I'm against the aforementioned polarization on all sides (thus my support of Kadima).

Simply put, swap a couple of words in the Hamas statements, and you have a state-of-the-union address by another current terrorist: GWB. The same religious statements, the same hypocritical "acceptance" of other groups. It's nothing but the same bullshit in a different pile.

One is no better than the other.


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 28 March 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly.

Israel has spent the last 30 years destroying the secular Arab nationalist movement, which expressed a much more sophisticated secular vision, such as the one expressed by Azmi Bishra above, leaving nothing other than Zionisms equal Arab opposite: Ruthless racist and mean.

Kadima is part of that attack upon the secular democratic aspect of Palestinian society, shredding conclusively the Oslo pledge that was the basis of the secular movements respect among the Palestinian people.

Asserting the wall as the boundary of Israel is nothing but a further humiliation to those Arabs who honestly had faith in a negotiated settlement.

Please read carefully the web site of Azmi Bishra. I think it will give you revealing insight into the Arab ideals which Sharon and Peres have sought to destroy.

Have a nice Hamas.

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 28 March 2006 03:40 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagnaf:

Excuse me? When "pressuring" infers "bombing civilians" (and yes, I can provide a list of victims dating back to shortly after the Hamas charter was penned), it's irrational ... sorry, "nutball".

We haven't finished with the second quote yet; you have read in wording--and meaning--which it does not contain.

'Pressuring' is not synonymous with 'bombing civilians'.

If you are responding to voices you haven't heard, then who's the nutbar?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 28 March 2006 04:14 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The polls have now closed. According to the BBC website

quote:
In the final hours, political parties tried persuade supporters to come out amid signs of a record low turnout.

Exit polls suggest a narrow lead for the centrist Kadima party, with the centre-left Labour in second and the right-wing Likud slumping to fourth.


BBC

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 March 2006 04:37 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I heard on the CBC yesterday that Israel has never had a majority government, thanks to PR. Under PR in Israel, the party with the most votes then has to start coalition-building, picking from amongst the other parties those who are closest to its views. I think that's a fair description of what I heard (saw, in CC).
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 28 March 2006 04:48 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I heard on the CBC yesterday that Israel has never had a majority government, thanks to PR. Under PR in Israel, the party with the most votes then has to start coalition-building, picking from amongst the other parties those who are closest to its views. I think that's a fair description of what I heard (saw, in CC).

Yes, that's the common effect of PR governments--the dealmaking and horsetrading which usually goes on behind closed doors inside parties now happens (a little) more in the open, between parties.

That's a good thing, because it gives a little more control to the citizens rather than party bosses and insiders, but it also has the paradoxical effect of exaggerating the influence exerted by fringe parties.

In Israel that's a problem, because some of their fringe parties are extremely racist, but I don't think that would be the case in Canada.

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 March 2006 04:52 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that was on The National last night. Peter Mansbridge is reporting from Israel this week, with assistance from Adrienne Arsenault and Nahlah Ayed.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 28 March 2006 06:15 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Exit polls released as polling stations closed at 10 P.M. Tuesday showed center-left parties gaining a total of between 62 and 66 seats, with Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima winning 29 to 32 seats, Labor 20-22 seats, Meretz five and the Arab parties seven to eight seats.

The Likud, which had hoped to block a center-left coalition, won 11 to 12 seats in the poll, far below the figures the party had hoped and a far cry from the 38 seats it won under Ariel Sharon in 2003.

. . . .

The results, if accurate, could mean that the Likud would become Israel's fourth largest party, with the Russian immigrant-dominated Yisrael Beiteinu becoming the third largest list in the 120-seat house with 12 to 14 seats.

In the largest surprise of the night, the Pensioners party was seen to win six to eight seats.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/699377.html

If the exit polls hold up, the election can be viewed as a massive rejection of the neo-liberal economic policies of Netanyahoo. It also could mean that the center-left could form a coalition without any of the religious parties.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 28 March 2006 06:26 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would vote for... um..... erp.....

I have no damn clue, I guess I'd vote Labour or Green or eat my ballot or vote Ale Yarok .

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 28 March 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I din't know much about internal Israeli politics. But in principle, I'd vote for a candidate or party that supported a viable Palestinian state. The rest aren't worth considering.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
FabFabian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7496

posted 28 March 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for FabFabian        Edit/Delete Post
I watched the National last night too. They did a piece on that ultra right wing, Russian immigrant party. I laughed my ass off when one of their supporters said that the Arabs has to get out of Israel, because they are foreigners. Look in the mirror buddy. Idiot.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 28 March 2006 08:12 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fab Fabian, for a long time (perhaps he has died, or returned to France) we had a representative of Le Pen's racist Front national here in Montréal, getting the "anti-immigrant" vote out ... among expat voters in French elections.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 28 March 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

as the actual vote count passed 70 percent of the total, Kadima's strength slipped to 28 seats. Labor held at 20 seats, and Shas rose to 13, raising the possibility that the Sephardi ultra-Orthodox party could become the third largest faction in the Knesset.

The Likud, which had hoped to block a center-left coalition, stood at 12 seats, far below the figures the party had hoped and a far cry from the 38 seats it won under Ariel Sharon in 2003.

Next in strength was Avigdor Lieberman's Russian Yisrael Beiteinu at 11 seats.

In the largest surprise of the night, the Pensioners party stood at eight seats. The right-wing National Union-National Religious Party was also at eight seats, with United Torah Judaism at six and Meretz and five. The Arab parties stood to win a total of nine seats.


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/699377.html

Adding Kadima, Labor, Meretz and the Pensioners Party, you get 61, a majority. (Of course, God forbid the Arab parties were included in a governing coalition. ). Kadima and Likud are doing worse than predicted, Labor about as expected. The big news is the Pensioners party coming out of nowhere, probably with a lot of support from the now defunct Shinui party.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 28 March 2006 09:12 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by FabFabian:
I watched the National last night too. They did a piece on that ultra right wing, Russian immigrant party. I laughed my ass off when one of their supporters said that the Arabs has to get out of Israel, because they are foreigners. Look in the mirror buddy. Idiot.

What was less funny was the reporter telling the official spokesman that his party has been called "fascist" and "racist". His reply? "So?"


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 28 March 2006 10:12 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

We haven't finished with the second quote yet; you have read in wording--and meaning--which it does not contain.

'Pressuring' is not synonymous with 'bombing civilians'.

If you are responding to voices you haven't heard, then who's the nutbar?


Wow ... that's not even a GOOD deflection.

Please consider reading "The Platform of the Islamic Resistance Movement" (there are English translations on a number of web sites). Then tell me that "pressuring" is not synonymous with "bombing civilians" in the language of Hamas.

Now -- are you going to have the balls to address the third statement? Or are you going to continue to ignore it like every other hypocritical, polarized "individual"? Please, tell me, how is Hamas' platform vastly different from GWBs? How are they "better"? How is one a terrorist organization, and the other a group of "freedom fighters"? How is one a religious zealot, and others simply fighting for what they believe in?

Yeah. I didn't think so.


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Serendipity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10327

posted 28 March 2006 11:14 PM      Profile for Serendipity     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd vote for Shinui.
Their passionate motto: The secularists are coming!

From: montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 28 March 2006 11:53 PM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Voter turnout in the Israeli election dropped to 63.2%, the lowest level ever.

Maybe they should consider bringing in PR to increase voter participation.


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 29 March 2006 12:46 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lagnaf:
Bush takes Israel's side all the time. So does the CBC. What's worse, they(Both Dubya and the Mothercorp) support Israel's Ziofachist establishment. The Ziosocalist and anti Zionist points of view hardly ever get mentioned. The purpose of Rabble is to give a voice to individuals and organizations which are part of the radical fringe. You shouldn't expect us to lend support to a philosopy which is already well represented in the(largely rightwing) mainstream press. We hardly ever get listened to off-line. Give us this chance to the vent.

quote:
Israel has spent the last 30 years destroying the secular Arab nationalist movement, which expressed a much more sophisticated secular vision, such as the one expressed by Azmi Bishra above, leaving nothing other than Zionisms equal Arab opposite: Ruthless racist and mean.


That isn't fair. There are Zionist humanitarians. Granted, they are becoming irrelevant as a two state solution becomes an impossibility, but I wouldn't count them out yet.

Back to the topic at hand. If I were in Isreal right now, I would probably vote Communist.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 29 March 2006 03:04 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagnaf:

Wow ... that's not even a GOOD deflection.


It doen't need to be good, and it doesn't need to deflect anything. It's the truth.

~~

Hamas--and other Palestinian organizations-- employ a wide range of methods for applying pressure on Israel*, and always have. Israel's partisans and supporters maintain tight a focus on violence, falsely representing it all as attacks on civilians, because this is the SOLE ground on which they feel they have a hope of gaining the moral high ground.

In every other respect; in law, in politics, in human rights, in 'natural justice', Israel
s case is so poor as to be laughable. There's literally nothing to be said in defense of israel's conduct during the occupation/colonization/atempted annexation, so Israel's partisans yell about terrorism, ad nauseum.

~~

However, in the occupation Israel is engaged in a war and using its own civilians as an offensive weapon. Ariel Sharon's famous "facts on the ground" strategy has no other meaning. He means "win this war by moving civilians into the war zone".

As long as that's the case--as long as Israeli civilians are being used as a weapon--Israel should be unsurprised to see them targeted in return.

~~~

*These include pursuing UN resolutions, engaging in international diplomacy, encouraging others to impose sanctions and respect boycotts, embarrassing Israel by providing the social services which the Fourth Geneva Convention obliges Israel to provide, and which Israel has failed to live up to. Etc--the list is much longer than this, and all of it exerts pressure on Israel; pressure Israel feels (and resents) keenly.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 March 2006 03:10 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I were in Israel right now, I would vote with my feet.

Especially given my earlier public declaration.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 March 2006 06:10 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

That isn't fair. There are Zionist humanitarians. Granted, they are becoming irrelevant as a two state solution becomes an impossibility, but I wouldn't count them out yet.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


There are moderates in Hamas, this does not change the esssential conception of the movement.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 29 March 2006 09:01 AM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Granted, they are becoming irrelevant as a two state solution becomes an impossibility, but I wouldn't count them out yet.

I don't understand. I would have thought that disengagement would make a two-state solution an inevitability.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: Krago ]


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 March 2006 09:23 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You would be right possibly if the disengagment occurred in such a way that their was enough territory to make a state, and that it did not directly itnerdict the course of daily social and economic life of Palestinians.

Imagine having your children walk to school through a heavily armed chedkpoint, everyday.

Israel has taken the poisoned pawn.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 02 April 2006 01:26 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The thing I've never understood about the unilateral disengagement position is this...

If Kadima's position is(or was, and which may now change considerably given that parties to their left may well actually outnumber Kadima in a center-left coalition)that there was no one they could negotiate with on the Palestianian side, why do they think the Palestinians will tolerate for a moment an Israeli government presuming to draw up and proclaim FINAL BORDERSwithout any Palestinian input in the matter. Isn't this idea basically delusional?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca