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 Election Results

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Israeli Election Results
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 29 March 2006 01:29 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Likud is in *fifth* place. Wow, how the mighty have fallen.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 29 March 2006 01:39 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I may gloat for a moment:

Daniel Pipes: [After Sharon:] Israeli Politics Will Revert to Its Past

In which Pipes predicted that after Sharon's stroke Israeli politics would "return to business as usual" and that "now Likud conceivably could, under the forceful leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, do well enough to remain in power. Likud's prospects look all the brighter given that Labour has just elected a radical and untried new leader, Amir Peretz."

I replied in a post
Wishful thinking

quote:
Daniel Pipes has confused political analysis with wishful thinking. As much as he hopes and prays for a Likud revival, all indications is that the mold of Israeli politics has been broken and that ...rejectionist stance has been confined to the margins.

The coming election will reduce Likud to a minor party


Election result: Kadima wins, Likud is in fifth place.

Me 1, Daniel Pipes 0

BTW, the ... above was an edit peformed by Pipes' or his webflunky. I had actually said "Pipes' rejectionist stance has been confined to the margins"

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 29 March 2006 01:43 AM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
How sweet it is..Pipes will hopefully pipe down his pontificating and his pitiful prognosis.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: eau ]


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 29 March 2006 02:52 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, its not good news for the Palestinian people. Shimon Perez, in an interview with Peter Mansbridge, said that a withdrawal to the 1967 green line "will never be acceptable to Israel".

Israel will finish building the apartheid wall (annexing most of the fertile ground in the West Bank in the process), and Palestine will remain divided into three bantuized enclaves. It's the completion of the process that Ariel Sharon started when he was PM of Israel.

Only in Israel can a party like Kadima pass itself off as moderate. Moderate Zionists are such a complete and total fraud.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 29 March 2006 05:04 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In following the results, it's helpful to know the surplus vote agreements:
quote:
1. Labor-Meimad with Meretz
2. Shas with Torah and Shabbat Judaism
3. Hadash with National Democratic Assembly (Balad)
4. Yisrael Beitenu with Likud

This means if one partner earns 8.4 seats and the other 6.2 seats, the one with 8.4 seats gets to add the 0.2 and gets a ninth seat. It also foreshadows post-election alliances.

Latest results:

quote:
Kadima 28
Labor-Meimad 20
Meretz 4
Yisrael Beitenu 12
Likud 11
Shas 13
Torah and Shabbat Judaism 6
NU/NRP 9
Pensioners 7
United Arab List 4
Hadash 3
National Democratic Assembly (Balad) 3

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 March 2006 06:29 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It doesn't matter who you vote for in Israel the Zionists always get in.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 29 March 2006 08:03 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Yes Cueball because Israel is a Zionist state and most Jews the world over are Zionisits. This would include Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun who Rabble.ca will be sponsoring this week in an address he will give in Toronto.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 March 2006 08:56 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Yes Cueball because Israel is a Zionist state and most Jews the world over are Zionisits.

Glad you think most Jews are Zionists. Is that like, "most Canadians are racist"?

I advise you to watch your generalizations, or else prove their accuracy.

The two facts I know are:

1. Most Jews do not make their home in Israel, despite the fact that the Basic Law of Israel grants them immediate citizenship upon arrival.

2. Almost no Canadian Jews that I personally know have ever expressed to me in a serious way that they consider Israel, rather than Canada (or Québec), to be their personal homeland.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 29 March 2006 08:57 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ohara: (sarcastically) Yes Cueball because Israel is a Zionist state and most Jews the world over are Zionisits.

What's the one got to do with the other? Can "most Jews the world over" vote in an Israeli election? How about Palestinians that live in the occupied, oops, I mean "administered", territories?

Or is it that you are interpreting Cueball's remarks about election results in Israel (that the Zionists always get in) as a statement about Jewish people outside of Israel?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 29 March 2006 09:04 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As satisfying as it is to see Nethanyahu humiliated, Pipes proven a fool and the Likud smashed I agree that Kadima is not a moderate party. They are "pragmatic" but their pragmatism is only steps away from the quasi-fascist Yisrael Beitanu's "realistic" solution of excluding Israeli Arab towns. Indeed, the rise of an openly dictatorial "strong man" party as the main party of the right provides a very real danger.

If I lived in Israel I probably would have voted for Hadash or one of the "Arab parties".


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 March 2006 09:18 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Yes Cueball because Israel is a Zionist state and most Jews the world over are Zionisits. This would include Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun who Rabble.ca will be sponsoring this week in an address he will give in Toronto.

I certainly support Lerner's vision of Zionism over the more virulent kinds, that said I prefered the late Abu Shanab of Hamas over Rantisi. The difference is that however wrong Lerner is about his support of Zionism, and its essentially racist implications, his beliefs do not spring from its racist aspects, and his beliefs are informed by a moral understanding which I can relate to.

However, Lerner's version of Zionism is unfortuantely shared by a very small minority of Jews living in Israel.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 29 March 2006 10:07 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No doubt most Jews living in Israel are Zionists. However, I've read that 20% of Israelis are Arabs, yet only 10 of the 120 Knesset members are from "Arab parties." This results, I expect, from several factors:
1. More Arab Israelis don't bother voting than Jewish Israelis.
2. Quite a few Israeli Arabs don't even consider themselves Israelis (possibly comparable to the Longhouse group at Six Nations who don't consider themselves Canadians and refuse to vote or even be counted in the Census.)
3. Quite a few Arab Israelis vote for Labour or Meretz or even for other secular parties.
4. Possibly, the Arab Israeli vote is splintered, much of it wasted on parties who fall below the 2% threshold -- although I'm not at all sure that's so.

If anyone finds a link showing how these factors seem to have played out in this election, it might be worth posting.

On another point: How many votes shifted, like Peres, from Labour to Kadima? In the last election Labour won 19 and Am Ehad 4, making 23 when they merged (although only 19 sat for Labour at dissolution, one Am Ehad having shifted to Kadima and three more MKs having wandered off somewhere.) And this time Meretz dropped from 6 to 4, which might have meant 2 more for Labour since Amir Peretz seems to have been a bit further left than Peres and picked up some votes from Meretz. So from their potential of 25 they dropped to 20, presumably losing 5 seats' worth of voters to Kadima. Or is this an over-simplification?

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 March 2006 10:24 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wilf, I haven't got the link you want, but you may find some interesting background in the website of Adalah, which is a registered independent human-rights organization serving Israeli Arabs:

Adalah website

Here's a recent item about the attempted disqualification of the leader of the United Arab List from participating in the elections, because (among other things) it was alleged that he did not recognize Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state". Adalah pleaded his case, and the central election committee ruled in his favour by 18-16:

Disqualification of United Arab List leader overturned

If I were an Israeli Arab who believed (for example) in a binational state, or let's say a non-theocratic state, and the law prevented candidates from running if they expressed my views, it might feel a bit like a cold shower in terms of enthusiastic participation in the process.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 March 2006 10:38 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It doesn't matter who you vote for in Israel the Zionists always get in.

Unless you vote BQ, in Canadain elections it doesn't matter who you vote for - a party that believes that Canada shoudl exist in some form always wins.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Heavy Sharper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11809

posted 29 March 2006 11:26 AM      Profile for Heavy Sharper        Edit/Delete Post
There are Jews who consider themselves Quebecois first and Canadian second?

That shocks me: I've never heard of Jews being very amenable to the idea of Quebec as a nation.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 29 March 2006 12:21 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
If I were an Israeli Arab who believed (for example) in a binational state, or let's say a non-theocratic state, and the law prevented candidates from running if they expressed my views, it might feel a bit like a cold shower in terms of enthusiastic participation in the process.

No doubt. And it might also feel fruitless to elect Arab MKs when, it seems, no Zionist party dares form a government that relies on the Arab MKs for support. Is it political suicide to be part of a government held hostage by Arabs?

On the other hand, perhaps the Arab List and Balad MKs would argue, they have both danced on the edge of being banned, showing their intent to seek equality for Israeli Arabs; shouldn't that be rewarded? And if the Knesset had 20% Arab MKs, would the other 80% still be able to pretend the Arabs weren't in the room?

So I expect there's more than one explanation.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 March 2006 12:24 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Heavy Sharper:
There are Jews who consider themselves Quebecois first and Canadian second?

That shocks me: I've never heard of Jews being very amenable to the idea of Quebec as a nation.


I'm sure you'd be shocked to meet an African without a great sense of rhythm too. How the hell do you get away with comments like this?

[EDITED - pushed button too soon:] Your comment sounds exactly like Jacques Parizeau's lament on the evening he lost his referendum. You're in great company.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 March 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For obvious reasons (ie: the Holocaust etc...), Jews in the diaspora tend to like living in pluralistic, multicultural societies as opposed to in ones based on nationalistic ethnic purity whihc is what an independent Quebec would be based on. Minority rights tend to be respected more in the former than in the latter.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 March 2006 12:34 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That comment is over the line, Stockholm. You can't stereotype Jews and Québec nationalists both, and accuse the latter of ethnic cleansing.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 29 March 2006 12:51 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
You can't stereotype Jews and Québec nationalists both.

Not any more. Mind you, when Mordecai Richler first wrote: "Jews who have been Quebecers for generations understand only too well that when thousands of flag-waving nationalists take to the streets roaring 'Le Québec aux Québécois!' they do not have in mind Québécois named Ginsburg" I had to admit it was a good line with the ring of truth. However, since then, both the PQ and the Bloc have taken huge steps to cement the concept of civic nationalism. Just look at the Bloc's caucus in Ottawa today.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 29 March 2006 01:37 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In my comments above on the Arab MKs, I omitted the fact that Ghaleb (Raleb) Majadele was an Arab Israeli MK for Labour in the last Knesset, and squeaked back in, 19th on the Labour list of which 20 were elected.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 29 March 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
That comment is over the line, Stockholm. You can't stereotype Jews and Québec nationalists both, and accuse the latter of ethnic cleansing.

*snerk*


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 29 March 2006 03:28 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
For obvious reasons (ie: the Holocaust etc...), Jews in the diaspora tend to like living in pluralistic, multicultural societies as opposed to in ones based on nationalistic ethnic purity...

Ahhh yes, the Zionist-in-Theory. The Zionist who sits comfortably in a multicultural state largely free of blut und boden concepts of nationalism while trumpeting the necessity of a guaranteed ethnic majority in Israel. The kind who takes nice trips to Israel and comes back bragging about how great it is and how they feel "more in touch with their roots" and the goes immediately back to enjoying the protections of civic multicultural nationalism. The kind that won't move to Israel permanently, because who would want to live amongst all that conflict? Conflict which they can't admit has anything at all to do with the notion of ethnic purity ensconced in Israeli law.

There's a lot more to Zionism than simply believing that Israel should exist in some way. It's what way that's the question.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 29 March 2006 03:31 PM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball wrote:
quote:
It doesn't matter who you vote for in Israel the Zionists always get in.

So true. Not even Barak was willing to withdraw to the 1967 Green Line. And the illegal settleents expanded faster under Barak than at any other time.

Even so-called "progressive" Zionism is a giant fraud.

[ 29 March 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 29 March 2006 07:12 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Even so-called "progressive" Zionism is a giant fraud.



You're saying there's no difference between Uri Avnery and Marty Kahane?

Think carefully now.

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


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 29 March 2006 07:42 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have a question. In his message yesterday, Uri Avnery said that the Hadash didn't have a single Jewish MP going into the election, but isn't Issam Moukul Jewish?
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 30 March 2006 12:29 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
CMOT Dibbler:
quote:
You're saying there's no difference between Uri Avnery and Marty Kahane?

All Zionism is fraudulent. The only real difference is the extent of the fraud. And that "progressive" Zionists do a better job of making their zionism appear non-fraudulent. But dig deep enough, and you can expose the fraud inherent in any strand of Zionism.

[ 30 March 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 30 March 2006 12:48 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It never occurred to me how silly your statement actually is. Zionism is not fraudulent. Racist yes, but never fraudulent. There is a difference between the Zionism espoused by Gush Shalom and the racism espoused by Labour and Likud. Gush's racism is more paternalistic. They are misguided but they are decent people. Mainstream Zionism is brutal, cruel and fascistic. There is a difference between the two.

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

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


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 30 March 2006 12:54 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
progressive" Zionists do a better job of making their zionism appear non-fraudulent.

If progressive Zionism doesn't appear to be a fraud, then it isn't.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 30 March 2006 03:53 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As the price for bringing Labor into the government, Labor leader Amir Peretz will make a number of key socioeconomic demands, including raising the minimum wage from $730 to $1,000 a month, providing pensions for all and increasing the basket of subsidized medicines. The pensioners will back him up.

Most of the Pensioners' Party list are former union leaders.

The resurgence in this election of socialist Labor, plus a strong showing by the Pensioners Party, indicates that some Israelis will be pushing hard for income redistribution.

The top tier of the Pensioner's Party are all former Labor Party unionist leaders, and Amir Peretz has been speaking their language about the need to improve conditions for the elderly, throughout the entire campaign. . . the Pensioners won their seats from the young, who were sending a protest vote against the major parties, in effect saying that it's time for Israeli politics to deal with the nitty-gritty of civic affairs, which was Peretz's message.

The vote for retirees was the Israeli electorate's way of saying it wants the state to obsess less on questions of war and peace and instead return its attention to a core Zionist impulse -- taking care of the people who built the country:

quote:
For many Israelis, the issues of social and economic inequality resonate deeply and older people feel this gap greatly. Pensioners is a single-issue party advocating increased medical benefits for Israel's elderly population.

Olmert enters the upcoming coalition negotiations in a weaker position than he hoped. Most starkly, he is far more dependent on the Labor Party, which will be his chief partner. Coalition pressures will force him to tack further leftward than he had planned, not just in the peace process but also in economics, education and health-care. But Kadima's loss will be Labor's gain. The biggest winner, we suspect, will be the Israeli people.

Okay, the Pensioners are on the left. Where the Jewish left had 28 MKs last time (19 Labour, 6 Meretz, 3 Am Ehad) it now has 31 (20 Labour, 7 Pensioners, 4 Meretz.) Considering that Peres and his supporters moved to Kadima, the left should have shrunk, but it grew.

The problem remains: only 59 MKs support Kadima's withdrawal plan. It needs the 10 "Arab Parties" MKs. Without relying on them, does it look to Shas?

Shas still did well because the party's real power is Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the Pat Robertson of Israel. Last year, he said about Ariel Sharon: "Let God strike him down. ... He is torturing the people of Israel. ... He will sleep and never wake up." Yosef said Hurricane Katrina "was God's retribution" for U.S. support for Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip.

Rabbi Shmuel Tal, head of Or Hayim yeshiva at Yad Binyamin (having been evacuated last summer from Neveh Dekalim), called on his students to vote for Shas. Tal said he had received a promise from Rabbi Ovadia and Eli Yishai that Shas would oppose a further withdrawal.

The two ultra-Orthodox religious parties, particularly Shas with its relatively hawkish constituency, will be wary of finding themselves in what will be billed by the Right as a 'Leftist' government.

When it will be time for an extensive withdrawal from most of the West Bank and the uprooting of close to 75 thousand settlers from their homes, Shas is likely to crack under the pressure and resign. Tough to say whether UTJ stays or goes.

[ 30 March 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 March 2006 07:11 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

On another point: How many votes shifted, like Peres, from Labour to Kadima? In the last election Labour won 19 and Am Ehad 4, making 23 when they merged (although only 19 sat for Labour at dissolution, one Am Ehad having shifted to Kadima and three more MKs having wandered off somewhere.) And this time Meretz dropped from 6 to 4, which might have meant 2 more for Labour since Amir Peretz seems to have been a bit further left than Peres and picked up some votes from Meretz. So from their potential of 25 they dropped to 20, presumably losing 5 seats' worth of voters to Kadima. Or is this an over-simplification?



Yes, this is basically accurate. But don't forget that Likud probably lost about 5 seats as well from its voters moving to Kadima. Also Labor lost some of its vote to Kadima, and perhaps the Pensioners' Party, because of cultural resentment that the Sephardic Peretz had become the head of the party.

As for not including the Arab parties in a governing coalition, it is a testament to the inherent exclusionism within Zionism.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 30 March 2006 07:16 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, in other words, yet again no serious withdrawal, and no serious attempt to apply 242. Annexation with a little chisseling at the form.

A big deal is being made about moveing 75,000 people, when the truth is that Israel has exported 200,000 since 1990. Add those to the 200,000 brought in between 1967 and Oslo, and you can see nothing that Kadima is even willing to do. There will be maximum coverage of whatever withdrawls are made as an example of how hard it all is, and how moderate Kadima is, largely for western consumption.

Israel will move 20,000 people tops. And not even from the West Bank probably, adjusting distribution of settlers in the West Bank not so much moving them back into Israel proper, based on their idea that everything behind the wall is Israel proper in their minds, never mind 242.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 30 March 2006 09:17 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Adalah is a registered independent human-rights organization serving Israeli Arabs:

Adalah website



quote:
Adalah's main goals are to achieve equal individual and collective rights for the Arab minority in Israel in different fields including land rights; civil and political rights; cultural, social, and economic rights; religious rights; women's rights; and prisoners' rights.

The attitude of excluding the Arab minority from participation in the government of Israel reminds me of the similar exclusion of the nationalist minority in Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1973, and the similar justification: the neighbouring state of the Irish nationalist community wanted to destroy Northern Ireland, in the sense that it claimed jurisdiction over the whole island of Ireland -- a one-state solution -- a claim that it maintained from 1921 until 1998.

That claim and that exclusion ended with the Good Friday Agreement. The two architects of the agreement, David Trimble and John Hume, were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

John Hume was a non-traditional leader in the nationalist community of Northern Ireland. The comparison would be to an Israeli Arab who broke with traditional Arab parties, founded a party seeking equal rights for the Arab minority in Israel and recognition by Hamas of the legitimacy of the two-state solution (that is, the legitimacy of a state with a Jewish majority), and became deputy Prime Minister as John Hume did of Northern Ireland.

David Trimble could not have done it alone. Where is the John Hume of the Israeli Arabs?

[ 30 March 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 30 March 2006 09:36 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

The attitude of excluding the Arab minority from participation in the government of Israel reminds me of the similar exclusion of the nationalist minority in Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1973,

Let's pause there for a moment. A "nationalist minority" is defined in terms of its political belief, not race, colour, religion, ethnic origin, etc. Were there laws in the U.K. (Northern Ireland) which overtly discriminated against Catholics? Or people with ancestry in the Republic? Or which gave preferential religious or ethnic-based immigration and citizenship rights?

I'm asking because I don't know, although I'm not aware of any.

In Israel, there are a host of laws (not just practices) which treat Arabs as second-class citizens, or which deny them citizenship altogether and even the right to return and reclaim their property. Likewise, there are laws which provide rights to Jews (whatever the fashionable definition of that term is these days in Israel) which are not available to non-Jews. The state is defined as "Jewish" - and this definition, and these ethnic and religious inequalities - are defended by force of arms.

I don't think Israeli Arabs can be described as a "nationalist minority". I have no idea whether they favour a one-state or two-state solution, or if there is any consensus. I know that they have long lived within a "one-state" solution which, for them, is not much of a solution.

Having said all that, I wonder if there is any useful comparison between Ireland and Israel. The Irish have had their homeland for almost 90 years, while the Palestinians have none. To hope for a John Hume to arise is to suggest that the problem of "Israeli" Arabs can be solved in isolation from that of non-Israelis. All of them, inside or outside Israel, are Palestinian Arabs, and I suspect that without the problem of Palestinian statehood being resolved, the issue of minorities will never be satisfactorily addressed.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 30 March 2006 10:18 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
The Irish have had their homeland for almost 90 years, while the Palestinians have none . . .I suspect that without the problem of Palestinian statehood being resolved, the issue of minorities will never be satisfactorily addressed.

Obviously no parallel between Israel/Palestine and other situations can be complete. My question is, can your proposition be stated the other way as well? Without the problems of minorities being satisfactorily addressed, can the issue of Palestinian statehood be resolved? Or do the "Palestinians" not care about the exclusion of Israeli Arabs?
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
A "nationalist minority" is defined in terms of its political belief, not race, colour, religion, ethnic origin, etc. Were there laws in the U.K. (Northern Ireland) which overtly discriminated against Catholics?

Long discussion. Overt laws, not usually. Practices, the nationalist community in 1972 could have given you a very long list. See How much discrimination was there under the unionist regime, 1921-68.

The "nationalist community," by the way, is official shorthand for the ethno-cultural community of the descendants of the original Irish inhabitants (predominantly Catholics) while the "unionist community" is official shorthand for the ethno-cultural community of the descendants of the wave of Scottish settlers of Ulster in the period 1610 to 1625 (predominantly Presbyterians and other Protestants).

The most political overt act to exclude the nationalist community was the abolition of proportional representation (originally introduced in both North and South in 1920) in municipal councils in 1922 and then in the Parliament of Northern Ireland in 1929.

quote:
In 1920 the British government had, as a safeguard to minorities north and south, introduced proportional representation for Irish local elections. But in 1922 the Northern Ireland government, as one of its earliest acts, abolished PR for local elections, and in 1923 it redrew the electoral boundaries in many areas. Following these changes, unionists made wholesale conquests of local authorities previously held by nationalists.

quote:
Most famous of all is a much-anthologised quotation from Sir Basil Brooke, then junior government whip, and later Prime Minister, on 12 July 1933:

There was a great number of Protestants and Orangemen who employed Roman Catholics. He felt he could speak freely on this subject as he had not a Roman Catholic about his own place (Cheers). He appreciated the great difficulty experienced by some of them in procuring suitable Protestant labour, but he would point out that the Roman Catholics were endeavouring to get in everywhere and were out with all their force and might to destroy the power and constitution of Ulster . . . . He would appeal to loyalists, therefore, wherever possible to employ good Protestant lads and lassies. (Fermanagh Times, 13 July 1933, quoted in Hepburn, 1980: 164)



Was anything like that ever said in Israel in the first 15 years of Israel's existence?

[ 30 March 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 March 2006 11:05 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FYI: Shas is fanaticaly rightwing on religious issues, but they are actually quite leftwing on social spending. Their voters to be poor Sephardim and so they oftne favour increased social spending and oppose cuts to the welfare state.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 March 2006 02:12 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Near final results:
quote:

Kadima, Likud and Meretz picked up one more seat each on Thursday, according to nearly-final results of vote counting in the wake of Tuesday's Knesset election.

Ra'am-Ta'al, Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas appear to have lost one seat each.

This is expected to guarantee Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert a Zionist majority in the Knesset in support of his plan to withdraw from the West Bank. This majority would be made up of Kadima, Labor, the Pensioners' Party and Meretz.

. . . .

According to the latest results, Kadima now has 29 seats, Labor has 20, Shas and Likud have 12 each, Yisrael Beiteinu has 11, National Union-National Religious Party has nine, Pensioners' Party has seven, United Torah Judaism has six, Meretz five, Ra'am-Ta'al three, Hadash three and Balad three.


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/700780.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 30 March 2006 02:30 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"A Zionist majority in the Knesset in support of his plan to withdraw from the West Bank. This majority would be made up of Kadima, Labor, the Pensioners' Party and Meretz."

This is good news in the short run, I guess. But it still leaves Israel saying it can't find an Arab partner for peace negotiations. Would a good first step be to find an Arab partner in government? If Israel had a law that 20% of the cabinet had to be Arab Israelis (there's that comparison with Northern Ireland again) is it possible that some of the Arab Israelis would have an easier time talking to the Palestinians than the Jewish Israelis have?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 30 March 2006 02:34 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
A Zionist majority in the Knesset in support of his plan to withdraw from the West Bank.

There is no plan to withdraw from the west bank. If there were, I'd be turning cartwheels of joy at the prospect of a real peace.

Kadima's program is, instead, a proposal for the unilateral (and illegal) annexation to Israel of parts of the Jerusalem and the West bank.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 March 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As well as leaving a large majority of the illegal settlers on the land. In addition, to some sort of "security zone" along the Jordan. This is something the Palestinians will never accept. So while Olmert and Co. may think they would be defining the final borders of Israel, they would mearly be ensuring a continuation, and probable escalation, of the conflict.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 30 March 2006 02:49 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:
There is no plan to withdraw from the west bank. If there were, I'd be turning cartwheels of joy at the prospect of a real peace.

But if Israel withdrew to the pre-1967 armistice line there would still be other problems: the right of return, and others. Israel was not occupying the West Bank from 1949 to 1967 but there was not much prospect of a real peace then.

The armistice agreement with Jordan was signed in Rhodes with the help of UN mediation on April 4, 1949. The agreement states that this is a necessary step towards reestablishing peace in the Land of Israel, and emphasizes that in no way is the armistice line to be interpreted as a political or territorial border, nor does it constitute interference with the rights, claims, or positions of any side vis-a-vis the final settlement of the question of the Land of Israel.

[ 30 March 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 30 March 2006 02:57 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
An observation is that whenever I hear an interview from Israel from the person on the street, the persons most frequently have an American accent. Occasionally its a British accent, sometimes French, but usually its American. What is that about that so many of the newcomers who are in the new Israeli settlements are Americans..why are so many of them moving to Israel, does anyone know?
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 March 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because Brooklyn is good at churning out zealots.

Actually, I don't think their numbers are all that great, but they tend to congregate in flash point settlements that receive a great deal of media attention.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 March 2006 03:17 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
An observation is that whenever I hear an interview from Israel from the person on the street, the persons most frequently have an American accent.

Maybe its because the English language TV networks that we all watch tend to seek out spokespeople who can speak good English. You probably rarely hear Russian Israelis being interviewed because so many of them speak no English.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 30 March 2006 03:27 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

But if Israel withdrew to the pre-1967 armistice line there would still be other problems: the right of return, and others.

If Israel was willing to withdraw, all the other problems are surmountable in negotiation. The sticking point is the land, not the other issues.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 March 2006 03:41 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well then why was there no peace BEFORE 1967 when Israel didn't occupy any of those territories?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 March 2006 04:19 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're talking about 40 years ago. A lot has changed since then vis-a-vis Arab state relations with Israel and Israeli recognition of Palestinian aspirations. This is a different historical setting.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 March 2006 04:28 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In other words, its only because the Israeli won big in the 1967 war that slowly, slowly, slowly it dawned on the Arabs that annhilating Israel and "throwing the Jews into the sea" was just not in the cards, so they had to settle for just a return to the status quo ante-bellum.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 March 2006 04:33 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, it was only when the dream of the Greater Land of Israel ran headlong into the Palestinians refusal to submit.

Nonetheless, experience is a great teacher on both sides. But no one should be sanguine. This conflict is far from over as long as Israel continues to insist on maintaining its presence in large portions of the west bank as well as East Jerusalem.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 31 March 2006 03:17 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wilf Day wrote:
quote:
But if Israel withdrew to the pre-1967 armistice line there would still be other problems: the right of return, and others. Israel was not occupying the West Bank from 1949 to 1967 but there was not much prospect of a real peace then.

Which is why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs a one state solution. Israel and Palestine get replaeced by one secular state,with no official religion. The apartheid wall must be dismantled. The settlements can remain, but arabs must gain the full right of ruturn, meaning that jewish only property must be done away with.

This solution is actually more feasible than moving all of the Israeli settlers out of the West Bank, which as Wilf Day pointed out, probably won't lead to a lasting peace.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 31 March 2006 03:28 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Well then why was there no peace BEFORE 1967 when Israel didn't occupy any of those territories?

Ethnic Cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from what is now Israel. Moreover, the creation of a state by force is almost always going to create a less-than-hospitable reaction from neighbouring states, i.e. Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Add in that Israel attacked Egypt in 1956 and you've got yourself some issues...


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2006 09:14 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Obviously no parallel between Israel/Palestine and other situations can be complete. My question is, can your proposition be stated the other way as well? Without the problems of minorities being satisfactorily addressed, can the issue of Palestinian statehood be resolved? Or do the "Palestinians" not care about the exclusion of Israeli Arabs?

[ 30 March 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]



It is not a matter of complete, it is a matter of wether or not they are comparable at all. Let alone the fact that Britain applied a level of secular law to its Irish citizens, and wether or not there was opression against them, the fact is that British policy was aimed at all times, even when it was to absorb the whole of Ireland of including the Irish, as citizens in the United Kingdom.

Contrarily, and leaving out the case of the Arab-Israelis, Israeil denies, and seeks not to include Palestinians Arabs in the West Bank as citizens at all.

3.5 million Palestinians live under martial law, and have done so for 38 years. They have no rightsd whatsoever.

quote:
John Hume was a non-traditional leader in the nationalist community of Northern Ireland. The comparison would be to an Israeli Arab who broke with traditional Arab parties, founded a party seeking equal rights for the Arab minority in Israel and recognition by Hamas of the legitimacy of the two-state solution (that is, the legitimacy of a state with a Jewish majority), and became deputy Prime Minister as John Hume did of Northern Ireland.

Have you ever bothered reading about the NDA, Arab parties that assert very much the kind of idea that you are propounding. Bishra has stated a wuite moderate position, saying Israel would keep its flag, and national Jewish identity in a bi-national state, with laws designed to recognize the special place that Israel has for Jewish people.

The reality is that Israel will have none of this.

Why do you talk about shit you haven't researched.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 31 March 2006 09:26 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
In other words, its only because the Israeli won big in the 1967 war that slowly, slowly, slowly it dawned on the Arabs that annhilating Israel and "throwing the Jews into the sea" was just not in the cards, so they had to settle for just a return to the status quo ante-bellum.

The origin of the line "throw the Jews into the sea," is Ben Gurion. Perhaps some day you could find source for whom the Arab he is quoting. No one seems to be able to.

Repetition of this unsourced phrase of Arab "evil intent" is like quoting the Protocols.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 31 March 2006 09:47 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

The socioeconomic earthquake that has rocked Israel since the start of the 21st century has been no less dramatic than that which took place in the diplomatic-security arena, with the intifada, the disengagement and the rise of Hamas. But the problems in the former realm were shunted aside, and this was justified by the pretense of a state of national emergency that necessitated tough economic decrees. The politicians, media and public have all conducted themselves as if nothing has happened, as if half-a-million Israelis have not dropped below the poverty line, as if the proportion of poor children has not reached first place in the Western world, as if there has not been a massive cutback of NIS 65 billion in the education, health and social-welfare budgets.

Each of the economic decisions made by the government since 2001 would have provoked a storm in any other country. One can only look on enviously at the mass protests in France, provoked by legislation that permits employers to dismiss workers under the age of 26 without reason. In Israel, an astounding series of decisions were made and laws were passed, with barely any response. These included cutbacks in unemployment benefits and a toughening of the criteria required to receive them; deep and extensive slashes in National Insurance Institute (NII) allowances; nationalization of the pension funds; raising the retirement age; privatization of the ports; an income tax reform that primarily benefited the well-to-do; cuts in social-welfare budgets; dismissals of government employees; widespread delays in the payment of salaries to local authority employees; a reduction of professional training opportunities; the implementation of a privatized program for unemployed recipients of income supplements (the Wisconsin Plan); a freeze on the minimum wage, and the list goes on.

These steps have harmed large sections of the population. Some of those affected, at least those who took the trouble this week to vote, finally expressed their protest. Not only did they punish and crush the Likud. They also put in its place successors with a social-welfare agenda: Labor, Shas and the pensioners


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/700790.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 01 April 2006 11:57 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Left Turn:

Only in Israel can a party like Kadima pass itself off as moderate.

Only in Israel you say?

During a news broadcast the day after the election, a CBC Radio bingocaller said Kadima is "centrist."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 01 April 2006 12:26 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
al-Qa'bong: During a news broadcast the day after the election, a CBC Radio bingocaller said Kadima is "centrist."

Listening to CBC radio on matters relating to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is like reading the editorials of the Winnipeg Free Press. The contrary position is so much more likely to be closer to the whole truth that it often seems a waste of time to listen; in both cases I have to unlearn and disentangle the lies and mis-information before I can actually learn something useful and new. My mental bullshit detector is always running out of psychic batteries...

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 01 April 2006 12:34 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Have you ever bothered reading about the NDA, Arab parties that assert very much the kind of idea that you are propounding. Bishra has stated a wuite moderate position, saying Israel would keep its flag, and national Jewish identity in a bi-national state, with laws designed to recognize the special place that Israel has for Jewish people.


What does he mean by a Bi national state?

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 01 April 2006 12:44 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
CMOT Dibbler: What does he mean by Bi national state?

Some country called Canada is a bi-national state, (English and French) though First Nations might rightly insist that their continuous presence over the centuries merits a similar recognition. In any case, a bi-national state would be one run both by Palestinians and Israelis. Since the Israelis are so persistent in preventing a viable Palestinian state from functioning it seems very unlikely that they will want to share government with them.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 April 2006 04:09 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Strange developments in Israel. There's a move afoot to have Labour leader Peretz become Prime Minister. On the one hand, Labour is trying to form a "social bloc" with Meretz, the Pensionsers Party and Shas (the moderate religious party that likes social spending, at least when it's showered on its members). On the other, the far right "National Union/National Religious Party" bloc is calling for Peretz to become PM in order to block a Kadima led government. Likud is also considering joining in on this request.

So, we may have a Labour led government in Israel backed by the far right parties.

National Union/NRP to back Peretz to form government


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 02 April 2006 04:40 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
Strange developments in Israel. There's a move afoot to have Labour leader Peretz become Prime Minister.

My bet is that this is a negotiating position designed to wrest greater concessions from Kadima as the price of Labour participation in the governing coalition.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 April 2006 07:09 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
we may have a Labour led government in Israel backed by the far right parties.

And relying on support from the Arab Parties!
quote:
Labor is attempting to form a coalition with Shas, United Torah Judaism, Meretz, the Pensioners' Party and either the Likud or National Union-NRP, with outside support from the Arab parties.

Labour 19
Shas 12
Pensioners 7
UTJ 6
Meretz 5
National Union-NRP 9
Total 58

Arab parties 10

What a revolutionary idea.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 02 April 2006 08:44 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Relying on Arab party support is not new. But to actually include them within the governing coalition would be. If I'm not mistaken, save for the first Israeli government, no Arab party has ever been including within a governing coalition.

I agree with the post above that Labor is just using this threat to extract a better deal from Kadima. The fact that Labor lost a seat in the recount to one of the Arab parties weakens its claim. And neither Meretz nor many Labor members would stand for forming a coalition with either the settler National Union/NRP party or Lieberman's party.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 April 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
And neither Meretz nor many Labor members would stand for forming a coalition with either the settler National Union/NRP party or Lieberman's party.

By those numbers, without the NU/NRP the Labour/Shas + Arab coalition would have 59 seats. If it were formed with the NU/NRP, it would take only two to come back from Kadima to free it from the need for the NU/NRP.

How would Shimon Peres, Dalia Itzik and Haim Ramon explain refusing to do that?

[ 03 April 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 02 April 2006 10:33 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While I can see why Likud and the National Union might prefer Labour over Kadima for tactical reasons (ie a desire to destroy Kadima) I can't imagine how a Labour government supported by what are in essence settlers' parties could last or indeed how one could be formed without splitting Labour (Meretz wouldn't join such a coalition, I"m fairly sure).
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
island empire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8064

posted 02 April 2006 11:11 PM      Profile for island empire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
what? since when did labour lose a seat to an arab party? the last i saw they were still at 20 seats.

and as for the coalition talks, i think that the left pretty much wants control of pretty much every one of domestic ministries, and clearly the tactic they're using right now (talking with shas, etc.) is part of the bargaining process.

also, this election was clearly a repudiation of bibi and his whole neoliberal project. labour lost votes (my guess is massively) to the pensioners and to kadima, and they picked votes up (my guess is massively) from likud's sephardis who've used the likud leadership crisis and their discontent on domestic issues to bolt from likud and support peretz' labour. the whole electoral dynamic in israel has, since the rise of likud, had this arriere-plan of ethnic voting, with the likud getting the arab jews at a 3-1 or 4-1 rate. the russians are the new sephardis (or so everyone says), and the old sephardis lost their champion (sharon) and their party (likud) over the last year.


From: montréal, canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 03 April 2006 09:59 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I recently tripped over this site which includes a table listing major current political parties and a summary of their political orientations. It says Agudath Yisrael and Degel Hatorah (who run together in elections as United Torah Judaism) are non-Zionist, which I sort of knew, and it also says that Shas is non-Zionist, which I had missed. Is this a widely accepted characterization of Shas?
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 April 2006 12:57 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would imagine that they are non-Zionist to the extent that they did not originally support Zionism for religious reasons. But in all practical effect they are currently Zionist.

Labor lost a seat to one of the Arab parties as a result of a requested reexamination of the Arab vote. As for a left-right coalition, that talk is dead:

quote:

Meretz on Monday afternoon announced it would recommend that President Moshe Katsav calls on Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to form the new government.

Meretz Chairman Yossi Beilin on Monday nixed the notion of his party joining a government led by Labor Party Chairman Amir Peretz, telling Israel Radio that such a move would mean joining a coalition with a right-wing presence, which his party rejects.

"Of course we will tell the president that our preferred candidate from an ideological stance is the leader of the Labor Party. The question is what kind of government, if at all, would he [Peretz] be able to establish. He can only set up a government without Kadima by going with the right-wing parties," Beilin said.

Meanwhile, Peretz on Monday denied rumors that he intends to form a coalition with right-wing parties to undermine the obvious candidate for premiership Olmert.

Peretz told his aides that he will not form a coalition with the right even though he can do it "in ten minutes."


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/701435.html


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

posted 04 April 2006 08:55 AM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On Monday both Meretz and the Pensioners Party recommended to the president of Israel that Olmert be asked to form a government. Today Labour did the same afer Olmert and Peretz made a joint appearance at a news conference saying Labour and Kadima would be coalition partners.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
TheStudent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11410

posted 04 April 2006 12:17 PM      Profile for TheStudent        Edit/Delete Post
Source?
From: Re-instate Audra Now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
aka Mycroft
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6640

posted 04 April 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for aka Mycroft     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheStudent:
Source?

Haaretz online. Sorry, my browser doesn't like that website and crashed before I could copy the url.

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 04 April 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Why do you talk about shit you haven't researched.
[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

You may have delineated this before, but for the benefit of those of us who might have missed it - please give us your detailed analysis of what the morally and ethically acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that would also guarantee a lasting peace, would be.

How can they stop breeding atrocities, over there?

Robin


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2006 03:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread is about the Israel election. It is a fact that people here go into quite detailed discussion of various aspects of this issue. So, perhaps you would like to ask me this elsewhere.

But in short, I do not believe that states should be created that exclude persons from full participation in the state on the basis of their religion or their race, this is especially true when it is clearly evident that the population is not even close to homogenous. An approriate model for Israel would be a bi-national or multicultural model, not a "Jewish" State, given that almost 50% of those who live in the area where Israel now rules (Israel and West Bank) are not Jewish, or even European.

That in itself is an obvious source of conflict in any society.

Further, in terms of resolution, I prefer that a solution be negotiated between the parties, however any such negotiated solution must take into account the wrongs that have been committed by successive Israeli governments in their ethnic cleansing project -- Not properly addressing this primary issue will also leave serious social ill will that will also promote further conflict.

Now, having answered your question, I am wondering have you bothered to check into the credentials of the Hamas people you maligned or are you going to continue to blow smoke because you have no idea what you were talking about and were just talking off the cuff?

Please start another thread, if you like, on Hamas, if you like.

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 04 April 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
This thread is about the Israel election. It is a fact that people here go into quite detailed discussion of various aspects of this issue. So, perhaps you would like to ask me this elsewhere.
[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Please - I'm very keen to hear all that you have to say about the correct resolution of the unfortunate state of affairs in Israel-Palestine.

Would you prefer that I start a new thread, for this?


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here I will start if, from a discussion of pacifism in the Palestinan liberation movement, since that seems to interest you.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 04 April 2006 03:31 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, what do you mean "not Jewish, or even European"? A great many Jewish Israelis - a small majority, I believe, are Sephardic and Oriental. Some Sephardim did come from Greece and the Balkans, but aren't most of those people from the Maghreb and the Middle East?
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2006 03:34 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure. Fine. I think my point was clear.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2006 03:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually I'd like to see a demographic census of the origins of Israel's population. That would be interesting.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 04 April 2006 04:08 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Actually I'd like to see a demographic census of the origins of Israel's population. That would be interesting.

18% of Israelis have russian as their first language, so that should give you a good start.

Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are the only two cities in the world which exceed Toronto's level of foreign-born residents--more than half the population was born elsewhere.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 04 April 2006 05:17 PM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Detailed stats be here:
Israeli Bureau of Stats

For example, Jews (including non-Arab
Christians and those not classified by religion) by Origin 2004 :

JEWS BY ORIGIN %
Origin: Israel 33.4
Asia 13.3
Africa 16.3
Europe-America 37.0

http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st02_24.pdf

This document breaks it down by country:
http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st02_23x.pdf


From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2006 08:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 04 April 2006 08:39 PM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
It seems that we will not be permitted to continue our discussion in that other thread, so here's what I was going to say:

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

All peace processes, and negotiation by fact of their symbiotic relationship to war, as an idea and a material fact, happen only while war is still in progress. Therefore any party which states that they will not negotiate with the people they are at war with is blocking the peace process because the only people whom you can negotiate peace with are with those whom one is it at war.


Well, thank you for what little you have shared.
Now that I have listened to what you have to say, you might do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say.

I agree with what you've said, above.
I think that "no negotiations without total cessation of violence" is irrational and unreasonable, particularly because without a formal state and supporting infrastructure there is no way "the palestinians" (in quotes to indicate recognition that the term describes people living within Israel and a widespread diaspora as well as those living in Gaza & the West Bank) can hope to deliver on such a promise, as they cannot control all of the internal & external factions operating in their territory.

I don't think that there cannot be negotiations unless there is "a state of war", however. I think that either side or both sides could attempt to cease hostility on their own, if they wished to. I think there are foreign interests agitating both sides to continue the violence, and vengeful factions within both sides that are determined to continue the violence, so I think it unlikely that either side will do so voluntarily.

By the way, I think it is clearly irrational to expect "the palestinians" to disarm themselves, while living on the other side of a wall from one of the most heavily armed nations on the planet.

Now, for the record:

- I do consider "the occupation" to be "an anti-democratic imposition of military rule" and fundamentally unjust. I also think that others can disagree with me on that without disqualifying themselves from being "progressives".

- I think that the dispossessed people from that area should have their greivances addressed, and that should be a priority, but I don't claim to have the wisdom of a solomon that may be necessary to figure out how best to do that at this point

- I think that the process by which the state of Israel came into being was fundamentally flawed, but I don't hold the people living in "Israel" to be responsible for that.

- I think that non-combatants, especially children, killed by violence on either side are innocent victims. I think all of their deaths are deeply regretable and sad, and I wish that both sides could make an unconditional committment to stopping the killing their utmost priority - but I understand that, on the ground there, it's just not that simple.

[Snarky? Perhaps my intent was misunderstood]

Robin


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, why didn't you just say that? I mean there is much there that I agree with, in fact most. If you had simply started the thread with that, which is usually how people start threads, your intentions would have been more clear.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 04 April 2006 08:51 PM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, why didn't you just say that? I mean there is much there that I agree with, in fact most. If you had simply started the thread with that, which is usually how people start threads, your intentions would have been more clear.

I didn't have any clear opinion of yours to react to! And most of what I could find was short, rude responses to others, frankly. And you had already decided you knew what my opinions were, without bothering to ask me.

You did ask me, in this thread, to start another thread - right? Which I did. I dunno why that got so badly misinterpreted.

You are correct, however. We hold very similar views on some aspects of these issues.

Robin


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 April 2006 09:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually the only thing that I have repeatedly asked you to clarify was where you got the idea that all the Hamas ldeaders got their degrees from a Cracker Jack box. I have not ventured any other opinions on what you have said, because you really haven't said anything.

I, in fact, have repeatedly stated that I was not inferring anything else about your opinions over and over again, only thie one issue, which you have consitently avoided answering, and still are by perputating this ridiculous flame war about issues that are completely unrelated to my concern over your sweeping statements about the authenticity of the scholarship of Hamas leaders.

That was the issue. It was the only issue. And you continue to avoid confronting it.

I quote, for instance from this thread Canada cuts relations with Palestine government :

quote:
No. Where did I say you were Islamaphobic or anti-Palestinian. That is your baggage.

What I asked was that you back up your determination that the people in question have not applied themselves as scholars, and that their credentials are not worth the paper they are written on.


and earlier...

quote:
You have stated that the gentlemen in question have not applied themselves to the material they have studied as "scholars." I am asking you to source facts to support this assertion. Something along the lines of revealing the research you have done on either the schools these people you are criticizing attended as a basis for asserting your belief about the quality of scholarship they have attained, or not.

Otherwise you are just blowing of hot air.


Again and again, in response to this, "turd" from you:

quote:
It hasn't occurred to you, that all those PHDs in "Islamic Studies" or "Sharia/Islamic Law" are roughly equivalent to PHDs in Theology from Oral Roberts University?


And then, it turns out Al Q. has done your research for you it turns out. Is the University of Iowa, Alabama State and the University of Pennsylvania not up to snuff in terms of your understanding of "scholarship," not Rhodes school for sure but are they akin to "Oral Roberts University," as you put it?

Your whole take was preachy and jingoistic, and sat all to well with your pronouncements about Gandhi, as if Palestinians (whose leadership are all a bunch of coutnry bafoons with their heads stuffed in Qu'ran) haven't heard of him.

And no, I am sorry, I wasn't very nice about confronting you on it, either. But that is about the only thing you got right.

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 05 April 2006 12:12 AM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Actually the only thing that I have repeatedly asked you to clarify was where you got the idea that all the Hamas ldeaders got their degrees from a Cracker Jack box. I have not ventured any other opinions on what you have said, because you really haven't said anything.

I, in fact, have repeatedly stated that I was not inferring anything else about your opinions over and over again, only thie one issue, which you have consitently avoided answering, and still are by perputating this ridiculous flame war about issues that are completely unrelated to my concern over your sweeping statements about the authenticity of the scholarship of Hamas leaders.

That was the issue. It was the only issue. And you continue to avoid confronting it.

I quote, for instance from this thread Canada cuts relations with Palestine government :

Again and again, in response to this, "turd" from you:

And then, it turns out Al Q. has done your research for you it turns out. Is the University of Iowa, Alabama State and the University of Pennsylvania not up to snuff in terms of your understanding of "scholarship," not Rhodes school for sure but are they akin to "Oral Roberts University," as you put it?

Your whole take was preachy and jingoistic, and sat all to well with your pronouncements about Gandhi, as if Palestinians (whose leadership are all a bunch of coutnry bafoons with their heads stuffed in Qu'ran) haven't heard of him.

And no, I am sorry, I wasn't very nice about confronting you on it, either. But that is about the only thing you got right.

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]



From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rgaiason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5752

posted 05 April 2006 12:14 AM      Profile for Rgaiason   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Again and again, in response to this, "turd" from you:
[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

If I were to reply to you in the same "tone", this thread would be closed. In fact, I suspect if I reply to this at all, it will get closed.

Which is intriguing.

Robin


From: edmonton | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 April 2006 12:21 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Could you two maybe get a room or something? This is getting kind of boring.

Cueball, maybe don't call people's posts "turds". Robin, please stop signing your posts. We know who you are.

And yes, this thread IS going to be closed pretty soon, simply because it's getting close to 100 posts. Let's see if I can leave it until morning without having it turn into a flame war.

[ 05 April 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yonge Street Blue
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9003

posted 05 April 2006 01:28 AM      Profile for Yonge Street Blue        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rgaiason:

Please - I'm very keen to hear all that you have to say about the correct resolution of the unfortunate state of affairs in Israel-Palestine.

Would you prefer that I start a new thread, for this?


Couldn't find a country called Israel-Palestine on the map. Is that the projected resulted from a "two-state" solution, or one from a fused and joint representation of the current Israel and the occupied territories?


From: Gananoque, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 05 April 2006 02:09 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting discussion of Israeli Arab views:
quote:
Israel's Arabs, according to all of the studies conducted in recent years, do, in fact, want to be integrated into the state. Some 96 percent of the residents of Umm al-Fahm said they were not willing to move to a future Palestinian state; and the vast majority of Arabs in the Triangle region vehemently opposed Avigdor Lieberman's territorial-exchange plan, which includes Arab communities, and unequivocally declared their allegiance to the State of Israel. Israel's Arabs, all of whom support a two-people-two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, have tied their destiny to that of the state, and will not want to live in another country. For Israel to pay them in kind would be a hopeful sign of the possibility of coexisting in a full partnership.

In 1992, there were just two Arab parties in the Knesset - Hadash, headed by Tawfik Zayyad, and the Arab Democratic Party, headed by Abdulwahab Darawshe - and their full cooperation with then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin led to the formation of a parliamentary bloc that prevented the right wing from toppling the government. Zayyad and Darawshe signed a deal with Labor that was, for all intents and purposes, a coalition agreement. The partnership was a success. The standing of Israel's Arabs was significantly boosted, and they began to see themselves as a part of the state; Rabin was enthusiastically received by Arab communities; and the government upheld the majority of its commitments.

Zayyad, himself, repeatedly said in interviews that the time had come to be partners - a statement that not one Arab leader in Israel today dares to repeat. Zayyad and Darawshe, who had very close ties with Yasser Arafat, knew that through this partnership, they were serving not only their voting public, but also peace, and therefore the interests of both peoples.

The Rabin government also understood that beyond the fact that it portrayed Israel as an enlightened state, the partnership with Israel's Arabs would also boost the Arabs' sense of concern and drastically alter their attitude toward the state. Therefore, it kicked off a serious plan to close the gaps between the Arab and Jewish sectors.

With a sincere desire on both sides, this same format can be revisited today, and even be deepened, by means of an agreement, prior to the coalition talks, among the Arab parties and Labor and Meretz, or between the Arab parties and Kadima, with the negotiations intended to yield a partnership deal. The very publication of such an agreement would spark a huge wave of public support and take us back to the days of Zayyad.

The period of coalition negotiations prior to the formation of a new government constitutes a golden opportunity for a change in the position of Israel's Arab citizens - for their sake, and the sake of the state. Incorporating them into coalition talks, with sincere and earnest intentions in mind, could serve to bring about a true, perhaps historic, change in relations between Jews and Arabs here, and in the attitude of the Arabs toward the state - with ramifications for relations between Israel and its neighbors.

As things stand today, the notion of incorporating the Arab parties into the coalition and government - any government, even one headed by Amir Peretz - is a far cry from being perceived as a practical option. There is reticence on both sides. The large parties don't even take such an option into account - some due to dogmatic thinking, and some in light of tactical considerations such as concern over being depicted by the right wing as establishing a government that rests on the votes of the Arabs, or due to so-called "security considerations."

The Arab parties suffer from the same pattern of thought. They don't consider the option of being partners in the coalition - and not just because of their collective call not to vote for the Zionist parties.

Some have concerns about being part of the government of the occupation and targeted killings; and some believe that serving in the government would undermine their intentions to intensify the alienation between the Arab citizens and the state.


Arab women in Knesset:
quote:
AMONG THE new female MKs elected to the 17th Knesset, one worth watching is Nadia Hilu, who, after two previous failures to get into the Knesset, has finally made it.

Hilu was originally tipped to become the first Arab woman MK, but did not receive sufficient votes in the 1996 Labor primaries. Three years later, Hussniya Jabara, running on a Meretz ticket, became the first Arab woman to be elected to the Knesset.

Hilu, who has filled important positions with Na'amat, the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality and the Union for Local Authorities, has a reputation for getting things done, and through her coexistence activities has excellent connections in both the Jewish the Arab communities.



Update on coalition; Shas wants in:
quote:
Yishai said the desire for social change was evidenced by the success of the Gil Pensioners Party and the number of mandates earned by Labor and Shas.

He said Shas would enter negotiations with Olmert as soon as the coalition talks start.

"We want to implement a social road map," said Yishai.

He said Labor chairman Amir Peretz had spoken to him about forming a 'social justice bloc,' but had not asked to be endorsed for prime minister.

Yishai expressed confidence that a coalition of Labor, Shas and Gil in a Kadima-led government could influence social policy.

Yishai said that specific ministerial portfolios were less important to Shas than helping the weakest members of society.

Kadima, Gil and Shas were the only parties to endorse Olmert in their meetings with Katsav. Labor has now joined them.

United Torah Judaism is expected to endorse Olmert.



From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 April 2006 07:27 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Olmert appears determined to include Lieberman's party. Peretz appears set to reverse his pledge not joint a government with Lieberman. Meretz would not join such a government.

As for the Arab parties, there are three of them. Balad believes in a two state solution based on the 1967 lines, with return of all refugees. And they want equal rights for Arabs within Israel. Hadash is derived from the former Communist party, is predominantly, but not exclusively, Arab, and advocates a solution similar to Balad. The United Arab List is predominantly religious, and also supports a two state solution.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2006 09:03 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As important about the NDA (Ballad) is its assertion that Israel must recognize the Arab minority in Israel as a national minority. they also assert that "The NDA regards Palestinian Arabs in Israel as part of the Palestinian Arab people; and at the same time they constitute a distinguished national minority in Israel."
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 April 2006 09:11 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rgaiason:

If I were to reply to you in the same "tone", this thread would be closed. In fact, I suspect if I reply to this at all, it will get closed.

Which is intriguing.

Robin


Doubtful. What would get this thread closed is pointless and repetative off topic sniping. I do not think the use of coarse language has ever closed a thread on Rabble, ever. Notice the one you started yesterday with the express purpose of scroning me was closed and no coarse lannguage was used at all. I am usually on topic.

Numerous posters whom hold similar views to mine have had their threads closed. I have had thread I started closes. People such as RS Farrel have been banned, while others like No Yards (I think) have been suspended.

So, why not leave off?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 07 April 2006 11:10 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have the impression that this is a fascinating and important debate. Unfortunately, I don't know what to make of it.
quote:
Ramon: "The dangers you point to do exist. But the danger of continuing the status quo is greater still. We are sitting on a volcanic crater, and we know exactly when it will erupt. We know that within 5-10 years our time as a Jewish and democratic state will come to an end. As soon as the Palestinians become the majority between the sea and the river - within less than a decade - they will demand one man, one vote, one state. They will ask why what is good for South Africa is not good for us. This danger is terrible. We are talking about an end to the Jewish-democratic state. That's why continued control of the West Bank is the immediate existential threat that Israel must attend to now. This threat is more dangerous than the dangers you're talking about. . .

I have been waiting for a Palestinian change for 20 years. And I'm not some Likudnik who has never seen a Palestinian in his life. I sat with Abu Mazen and with Abu Ala and with [Mohammed] Dahlan. Dahlan is a friend of mine. And so I'm telling you from experience that they can't give up on the right of return. And they are not capable of reaching a compromise on Jerusalem. So there will not be a final-status agreement. Any attempt to reach a final-status agreement will lead to a thousand more fatalities, like Camp David. But they are also not ready for an interim agreement. Therefore, the choice is between the status quo and a unilateral process. To die or to have surgery.

Like Beilin and Peretz and Netanyahu, you are demanding something in exchange that you will not receive, for territory that is a burden and not an asset. And so you too, like Beilin and Peretz and Netanyahu, are placing your fate in the hands of your enemy. And I am not prepared to do this anymore. I want to reach the stage where I will not be dependent on anyone. So I will go to the international community, and I will go to Abu Mazen. But in the end, I will act in accordance with my existential interest. And my existential interest requires me to free myself of this 90 percent of the West Bank that endangers me. Because unlike you, I understand that I have cancer. And I am not prepared to say that this cancerous growth is a gem.

So you can tell me that I don't have an operating room here and I don't have anesthesia and I don't have a sterile scalpel. But I am telling you that if I don't do the surgery I won't live. That's why I am getting the operation done. I am cutting. Because if I wait until all your demands are fulfilled, I will simply die."



From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 April 2006 11:15 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Because unlike you, I understand that I have cancer

Yeah yeah--Palestinians (jews/blacks/whites/die Juden... pick one) are a cancer. How can Zionists get away with pretending they're not racist to the core?

[ 08 April 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 April 2006 06:34 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
I have the impression that this is a fascinating and important debate. Unfortunately, I don't know what to make of it.

It is creepy and sad.

Try Hadrian discussing how to deal with the Dalmatians with Trajan. Problem is that as debate it makes no real sense because it actually should be a debate between Dalmatians and the Romans. But the Dalmatian voice is not present. It is a man talking to himself about his existstential dilema. It is two Romans talking about what they should do with/to the Dalmatians.

I don't know why people get so impressed when existentialism appears in a text about Israel. 'Being in the world' (recognition complex -- I mean really! Who cares if they "recognize" you? You exist. Right?) and not his place in the discourse with Palestinians. Palestinians appear in the dilema of existance not as players whom can be accomodated but appear only as external subject/problem/threat (to be ovecome?) (to allieviate bordom, establish meaning... existance... what?!)

What did numb nuts say? "Being preceeds essence" (?)Abstracted self definitional being in the world. Free to make oneself in the world as what... an asshole? Someone uses the jingoistic proto-racist phrase "Hamastan" in discussion and you don't laugh at him? Why not? Why not walk out? No! You publish it!

Deconstructed, the man talking to himself about his existstential dilema is Raskalnikov babbling in the streets of Moscow after his "achievement" of killing off his landlady just to prove that he could do it.

Nice people these. Important people. An important debate. Yes!

I will tell you this though: I would have walked out of Camp David the minute some poseur artiste dilettante type started to assert the primacy of his existential interest in the face of my water rights.

[ 08 April 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 April 2006 09:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good points, Cueball. That'll be the thread closer because this is long. Feel free to contiune in a new thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  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