| Author |
Message |
    
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 857
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 11:19 pm: | 
|
In reading the posts here I see a tremendous amount of ignorance displayed about Palestinian societal values and national objectives. A good web site for those of you who wish to start to educate yourselves, rather than just blabber without substance on what the Palestinians are all about in this conflict, is
www.memri.org
A society that produces people who go into pizza parlors with the intent to explode themselves and the patrons, shoots at a woman driving in a car with her two small children, and then approaches the car and shoots all three multiple times at point blank range, and beats two Israeli men to death because their car made a wrong turn into Palestinian territory and then hold up their bloody hands to a cheering crowd, can only be classified as sick and savage.
They also danced and chanted and handed out candies in "honor" of 9-11 in the Palestinian territories.
The atrocities that the Palestinians have perpetrated have killed about 1,000 Israelis, largely civilians. Given the comparative sizes of our two countries, I have read that would be the equivalent of about 30,000 Americans.
I would point out that the Palestinians have not chosen the path of Gandhi to achieve their national aspirations.
Ha'aretz is a far left newspaper in Israel that reflects little of main stream Israeli opinion as well.
As we all know, you can also find Americans to say that 9-11 was our fault and OBL was right. Doesn't mean they or Gidi Levy is right. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 554
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 12:14 am: |
|
Gideon Levy was spokesperson for Former Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister Shimon Peres from From 1978 to 1982.
Here is Henry Siegman, former president of the American Jewish Congress, writing last month in the LA Times:
Terror, Retaliation and Moral Morass
The death of an entire Palestinian family - a father and his six children - on a Gaza beach earlier this month, followed just a few days later by an Israeli missile strike that killed nine more Palestinian civilians, has reopened the controversy about whether there is really much difference between Palestinian terrorism and Israel's military retaliations.
Writing in Israel's Maariv, columnist Dan Margalit argues that "even if an Israeli shell killed them, there was no intention to kill peaceful civilians on a beach in Gaza. On the other hand, the Kassam (rockets) fired at Sderot is an ongoing, systematic and conscious effort at the premeditated killing of (Israeli) civilians." He concludes that "only a world lacking integrity and full of conspiracies ignores the decisive difference in intentions between the two sides."
The last time this controversy flared was following the release of Steven Spielberg's movie Munich. The movie was criticized for its "moral equivalence," allegedly equating Palestinian terrorism and Israeli retaliations. Much in the spirit of Margalit's angry comment, Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic argued at the time that the equation is false because "the death of innocents was an Israeli mistake but a Palestinian objective."
The distinction might have had greater merit if Israeli strikes held out any prospect of ending, or even reducing, Palestinian terrorism. In fact, they have the opposite effect.
Ofer Shelah writes in Yedioth Ahronoth that even those in the Israeli Defense Forces responsible for this policy now admit that in the early days of the Palestinian intifada, retaliatory strikes contributed to the continuation of the conflict and the great outbreak of terrorism starting in mid-2001. The IDF's notion that "what doesn't work by force will work with more force" has proved its bankruptcy.
The vast disproportion between Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli "mistakes" and Israeli casualties from Palestinian terrorist assaults also brings into question the distinction between the two. It suggests that the killing of Palestinian civilians is, at the very least, more a matter of Israeli indifference than a mistake.
Not a single Israeli has been killed by a Kassam rocket since Israel's disengagement from Gaza last year, although during this period Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli artillery and airstrikes virtually on a daily basis. (According to B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, Israeli forces have killed about 3,400 Palestinians since the intifada started, and Palestinians have killed about 1,000 Israelis).
More important, judgments about the morality of Israeli military strikes that kill innocents cannot be made without reference to the political context within which the violence occurs. Even when Israeli attacks are carried out with care to avoid harm to civilians, "collateral damage," in which innocent Palestinians are killed or maimed, only can be justified if Israel also is engaged in a serious and realistic attempt to reach a negotiated solution.
But since the Labor Party was voted out of office in 2000, Israel's policy has been to refuse to consider concessions that would have to be made in negotiations with the Palestinians. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateralism, embraced by his successor, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, was never intended as a bridge to a renewal of the peace process but as a strategy for its avoidance. It is a policy that the Labor Party, despite occasional campaign rhetoric, has largely supported.
In the opinion of most Israeli security experts, terrorism cannot be defeated unless Israel offers Palestinians a credible political prospect for achieving viable statehood. Without such a political prospect - which for all practical purposes has been eliminated by the conditions imposed by Olmert for a renewal of peace talks and by continuing Israeli settlement expansion deep into the West Bank - Israeli retaliations degenerate into vengeance and have no claim to greater moral justification than Palestinian terrorism.
Palestinians insist that, like the Israelis, their objective is not to kill innocent civilians but to end a crushing occupation that is now in its 40th year. Killing civilians is seen by some of them - immorally and stupidly - as a means to that end.
But they are not alone in this. Some in the Jewish community in Palestine also resorted to this means when they were engaged in their own struggle for national independence and statehood. The Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization that morphed into the Likud, first targeted Arab civilians in October 1937. In his history of Israel's War of Independence, Righteous Victims, Benny Morris writes that the Irgun "introduced a new dimension to the conflict" when "for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centers, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed." Morris writes that in 1937, "this 'innovation' soon found Arab imitators."
Of course, the killing of innocents was utterly immoral when Jews resorted to it during their struggle for independence, and it is just as utterly immoral when Palestinians resort to it now. When accounting for the different stages in which the Jewish and Palestinian national struggles find themselves, their moral (or immoral) equivalence could not be more precise.
No serious person can believe that Israel - with one of the world's most powerful military establishments - is at risk of being undone and eliminated by Hamas or by any other terrorist group. With or without Hamas' recognition, Israel's existence is not in doubt. In a recent interview in Haaretz, Efraim Halevy, who served as head of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002 and as national security advisor to Sharon, ridiculed the notion that a terrorist group could endanger Israel's existence.
Furthermore, if Israel were to enter into a negotiation with Palestinians that actually recognized Palestinian national rights and the pre-1967 borders, I believe - based on extensive conversations with the players in the region - that Hamas would agree to minor and reciprocal border adjustments. Skeptics must be reminded that of all the various strategies resorted to by Israel over the years to end its conflict with the Palestinians, none of which has come even close to achieving that goal, the one it has never tried is returning to pre-1967 borders as the starting point for reciprocal adjustments.
The overarching moral issue for Israel is whether the additional territory it seeks to hold is worth the inevitable cost in Palestinian and Israeli lives. The question for Israelis is whether the shattering of an entire people, in the West Bank and "liberated" Gaza, and the Palestinian and Israeli lives yet to be extinguished as a new intifada is triggered by the IDF's determination to convince Palestinians that they are a defeated people, is a price they are prepared to continue to pay for their government's unilateralist fixation.
Henry Siegman is a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations and a visiting professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 555
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 12:25 am: |
|
And people might want to read this:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11009/siegman.html
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 864
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 12:47 am: |
|
kathleen-
You need to read more of Gidi Levy's articles. But of course, you probably have (at Bint Jbeil ), as he has become the Israeli journalist media darling among the pro-Palestinian set.
Levy has admitted his fellow Israeli journalists disagree with him quite strongly and credits Israeli democracy for allowing his articles attacking his own country to be continued to be published in Ha'aretz.
Levy, as one example, had characterized Yasser Arafat a "very warm, very endearing, and very charming" man, when Arafat was waging attacks on Israeli civilians through his Al Aksa brigades. Levy seems to be viewed as an Israeli apologist for the Palestinians.
Ditto, on Henry Siegman's CFR activities and opinions. He is quite controversial on his ideas and views on "solving" the Arab-Israeli conflict and viewed as pro-Palestinian as well.
He is no Dennis Ross, and I believe both the Clinton and Bush administrations declined to give him a seat at the table.
I do however, like how you cherry-pick "experts" and selective articles to support your propaganda needs. There are quite a number more disagreeing with these two, as you also probably know.
What is wonderful about Israel as a democracy having a free press is that you get a full range of opinion expressed, unlike in Palestinian or Arab countries.
Also, according to the Israel Defense Forces investigation the explosion that killed the family on the beach in Gaza was not caused by IDF artillery fire. One theory is that it was a round planted by Hamas to mine the area in the event a feared Israeli invasion came by sea. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 865
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 1:01 am: |
|
I forgot to add that an excellent critique of Henry Siegman's academic credentials and past anti-Israel positions can be found at
www.meforum.org/article/751
being the web site of the Middle East Forum. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 6:40 am: |
|
Rastro, you hit the nail on the head:
Quote:I understand your rationale, but that would require the removal of all emotion from this issue. And in a place like the Middle East, emotion is a factor in every action.
Israel's response to the kidnapping, and most of the posts on this thread defending the response, are entirely emotional, devoid of any strategic or even tactical rationale, either with regard to Israel's security or with saving the life of Gilad Shilat.
As far as Abbas's record is concerned -- of course he's weak and ineffective. But Israel and the US have all kinds of resources to strengthen him and enhance his status in the eyes of the Palestinian people. One way is to recognize him as the real leader of the Palestinians and make it clear that a military pullback and restoration of services is being done in response to his request.
A similar opportunity was lost during Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Israel could have negotiated the terms of withdrawal with Abbas, stating that it was being done in response to his recognition of Israel and his support for nonviolence. In contrast, Israel ignored Abbas, withdrew unilaterally, and allowed Hamas to claim that "armed struggle" forced the Israelis to leave. This was a big factor in Hamas's electoral victory in January. It wasn't just PA corruption that brought them to power.
Israel and the US have enormous means to encourage the Palestinian people to moderates like Abbas who recognize Israel and have disavowed violence. But the current Israeli military response will likely have the opposite effect.
|
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 641
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 8:23 am: |
|
Strengthening a terrorist because he has a cuter smile is not good policy.
Too bad Israel defends itself.
jd
|
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 634
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 9:18 am: |
|
A survey of Israeli and Palestinian media commentaries compiled by the BBC:
Quote:Press warns Israel government
Newspapers in both Israel and Palestinian territories accuse the Israeli government of using the missing soldier Cpl Gilad Shalit as an excuse to undermine the Palestinian Authority.
Israeli commentators especially are concerned that such actions will rebound on the government of Ehud Olmert and destabilise the Middle East even more.
SHIMON SCHIFFER IN ISRAEL'S TOP CIRCULATION YEDIOT AHARONOT
What we have here is not an attempt to rescue Cpl Shalit and bring him safe to his family and not an attempt to stop the firing of the Qassam rockets but a move aimed at destroying the Hamas government in the hope that next time the Palestinians will choose a responsible government that will negotiate with Israel.
GADI TAOB IN ISRAEL'S CENTRE-RIGHT MAARIV
The danger in the military move is that it will speed up the fragmentation, promote chaos and reduce the chances of establishing a central government... Israel must reduce as much as possible the extent of the fragmentation it is causing, try not to hit the unifying forces and avoid toppling the Hamas government by military means. Pressure can force it to become moderate. Crushing pressure will only increase the number of organisations over which no-one has control.
DANNY RUBINSTEIN IN ISRAEL'S LEFT-OF-CENTRE HAARETZ
From Israel's perspective, the continued functioning of the Palestinian Authority [PA] in the West Bank and Gaza is important. The alternative to the PA is chaos or the return of total Israeli occupation. It is difficult to assume that anyone in Israel wants this, because the security and diplomatic damage to the country in such a case would be grave indeed. Therefore, there is no alternative but to enter into negotiations immediately, with whatever degree of toughness is required, on the quid pro quo for the release of Gilad Shalit. There are many disadvantages to such negotiations, but the alternative is harsher and far more dangerous - both to the soldier's fate and to Israel's diplomatic and national interests.
HAGAY HUBERMAN IN ISRAEL'S NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTY AFFILIATE HATZOFE
This is the sad truth: The objective of the operation is clear to no-one - not the government, not the prime minister, not the IDF with all its commanders. No-one tried to think 20 steps ahead. When an operation is called a 'rolling operation' they mean that the operation continues to roll independently and then we will all see where it leads. The leaders of the country have no advanced planning as to where it will lead.
HAFITH AL-BARGHUTHI IN THE PALESTINIAN AL-HAYAT AL-JADIDAH
No-one wants the Palestinian Authority to be strong. The occupation has worked to destroy it so that it will become a name empty of any content. The government is besieged and has not been able to find a way out of this crisis. We are all frustrated, angry and desperate. Beware of frustration for it might appear in the form of a violence from which there is no return.
HANI AWKAL IN THE PALESTINIAN AL-AYYAM
Summer Rain [the Israeli Gaza incursion] does not bear the characteristics of an operation intended to save Shalit. It seeks to impose the Israeli agenda that wants to shred to pieces the Palestinians' resistance in all its forms, stop the launching of home made rockets and undermine Palestinian attempts to prevent Palestinian factions forming a lobby that presenting a united vision.
EDITORIAL IN THE PALESTINIAN AL-QUDS
A wider Arab-Islamic move is needed to exert pressure on Israel to find a way out of the spiral and help the region avoid a wider explosion. This move is also needed to make the international community intervene to find a drastic solution that would end the illegal Israeli occupation, end the Palestinian suffering that has been going on for half a century.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5140320.stm
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 866
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
Paul-
I don't find the comments posted here "emotional" but inherent common sense. An enemy that doesn't recognize your right to exist and sends people to slaughter your civilians is one that lacks the basic requisites to civilized statecraft and negotiation. It is called a "no brainer". I think intelligent people do get upset when they read idiotic comments trying to pass as sophisticated and knowing, otherwise.
I believe many of the most liberal-minded people who post here, if faced with what the people of Israel, and those in Sderot who have Palestinian qassams raing down on their heads, would be screaming for the harshest millitary action and would be willing to suspend certain civil liberties we take for granted.
Sadly, Israelis are quite used to it, and have responded quite rationally and in
incremental steps. They have not carpet bombed Palestinian areas, as the allies did Germany in WWII. And you remember what America did to Japan in order to avoid substantial american losses had they tried to invade the island. They knew of course that these acts would cause extreme numbers of civilian deaths. But it was war, right?
No one here was seriously attempting to discuss the tactics or millitary strategy to be employed to release Shalit or end the qassam fire, BTW. In the end Israel will probably have to mount an operation akin to "Operation Defensive Shield" to defeat Palestinian terrorism. Whatever happens the Palestinians have brought that on themselves.
Its extremely amusing that you are quoting one of the most biased sources of reporting on the Middle East, the BBC. Recently the BBC disregarded implementing the report of an independent committee that it CREATED to study whether there was a pro-Palestinian bias in its news. Guess what they found.
BBC correspondent Barbara Platt when reporting on the transportation of Yasser Arafat to France for medical treatment actually cried when doing her report and expressed her admiration and devotion for this un-relenting terrorist.
Real un-biased.
For you liberals, think of it as you do Fox News, when you think BBC objectivity. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1590
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
Rastro - I disagree. Israel is a democratic theocracy. If you are jewish you have more rights then if you are not.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0190/9001020.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook01252003.html
snip
A Democratic state must declare the premises of its existence in a document or documents that present to the world the logic of its right to govern. That usually comes in the form of a constitution. Unlike the Palestinians, Israel has no constitution. Chuck Chriss, President of JIA writes, "Israel has no written constitution, unlike the United States and most other democracies. There was supposed to be one. The Proclamation of Independence of the State of Israel calls for the preparation of a constitution, but it was never done." It's been more than 50 years since that "call". Why has Israel demurred on the creation of a constitution? Both Chriss in his article and Daniel J. Elazar, writing in "The Constitution of the State of Israel," point to the same dilemma: how to reconcile the secular and religious forces in Israel. Elazar states: "Israel has been unable to adopt a constitution full blown, not because it does not share the new society understanding of constitution as fundamental law, but because of a conflict over what constitutes fundamental law within Israeli society. Many religious Jews hold that the only real constitution for a Jewish state is the Torah and the Jewish law that flows from it. They not only see no need for a modern secular constitution, but even see in such a document a threat to the supremacy of the Torah"
snip
For a state to claim a Democratic form of government, it must accept the equality of all residents within its borders as legitimate citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, religion, political belief, or gender. For a state to claim it is Democratic and reserve the rights of citizenship to a select group negates its claim. It is an oxymoron to limit citizenship rights to Jews alone and call the state Democratic. As Joel Kovel has stated in Tikkun, "a democracy that is only to be for a certain people cannot exist, for the elementary reason that the modern democratic state is defined by its claims of universality." Yet this inherent contradiction exists in Israel. And this brings us from the philosophical phase to the practical one.
Theocracy is not democracy.
Within Israel even Arabs who have citizenship are not treated as equals.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00322.htm
So I stand by my 'sort of' statement. |
Paul Surovell
Supporter
Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
FactvsFiction,
I agree that the comments are not emotional.
What I argued, and what is implied in the most of the comments, is that the Israeli Government policy is emotional rather than strategic.
The comment that most closely follows this view is
Quote:HAGAY HUBERMAN IN ISRAEL'S NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTY AFFILIATE HATZOFE
This is the sad truth: The objective of the operation is clear to no-one - not the government, not the prime minister, not the IDF with all its commanders. No-one tried to think 20 steps ahead. When an operation is called a 'rolling operation' they mean that the operation continues to roll independently and then we will all see where it leads. The leaders of the country have no advanced planning as to where it will lead.
My boldface.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3470
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:31 am: |
|
Hoops. It is not a Democratic Theocracy. More accurate might be a theocratic Democracy or religious Democracy. There is an implication that there are HUGE differences in the rights of Arabs and Jews in Israel. There are actually very few. This happens to be one of them.
I'm curious what countries, other than the US, you consider to be democracies. The US actually has a very different view of Democracy than much of the rest of the world. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1591
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
Rastro, I can live with democratic theocracy or religious democracy...
I am not as studied in foreign systems of government as you may be and so I cant really answer your question. I grant you that the USA has a unique view of government and that is what has made us a shining example of government throughout the world.
This thread however is about Israeli/Palestinian relations. I dont see how 2 wrongs make a right.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 870
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:43 am: |
|
Hoops-
You amaze me sometimes by your thought process. Where to begin?
It seems hopeless. In short:
Israel is a secular society that has a system of secular courts, follows the rule of law, and allows citizens to freely vote. The Israeli Knesset includes arab members, many of whom hold views that a good number of Israelis view as anti-Israel. Comapre the standard of living of Israeli Arabs with other Arab countries. Not close. Israeli arabs for example would not like to live in a Palestinian state, due to the individual liberties they have in Israel and that do not exist in the Palestinian authority or other Arab countries.
What are the conditions of Jews living in Arab countries, take Syria for example. Are they kept in ghettos, and not allowed to leave the country? What is the status of their individual rights and personal liberties? The same as Israeli Arabs? Uh... nope.
Did you happen to know that one of Hamas' proposals was to tax "non-believers" read Christians and Muslims, for the privilidge of living in a muslim Palestine?
Do you realize that according to the fundamentalist muslims that Jews and Christians are dhimmis, second-class citizens without the legal and personal rights of muslims in their societies? Do you wonder why so many Palestinian Christians are fleeing due to conflict with and violence by their muslim brethern?
No society is perfect. There are people that view American society as racist and in the last campaign Edwards claimed American was a nation of two societies, lacking in equal economic and other opportunities.
You need to view things in perspective and with some degree of nuance Hoops.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3472
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:52 am: |
|
FvF, while I would guess our positions on the problem in the ME are similar, the status of Palestinians in other nations, or of non-mulsims on Palestinian controlled land, or even America's policies are not the issue.
The issue is, what is a reasonable action to take when a government of another state kidnaps a citizen. To most, this is considered an act of war, particluarly when that person is a soldier.
I wonder what the US reaction would be if American citizens were kidnapped by a foreign government. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12010
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:57 am: |
|
FvF, if things are so peachy for Arabs in Israel, why do many of the members of the Knesset hold views that most Israelis don't like? A little logical inconsistency there me thinks.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 12:44 pm: |
|
fvf - lol
it is hopeless when you have a side that you champion regardless of actions taken by that side.
I guarantee you that i am totally opposed to oppression of jewish people in any state be it arab, european, asian or american. the fact is that i am opposed to oppression period.
It matters not that Israel is kind of doing the right thing. It matters that they do the right thing, period.
If you cant see what Israel is doing wrong then you are correct. It is hopeless.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 871
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Rastro-
I agree that Hamas has committed an act of war by seizing this soldier. However they have been waging war against Israel since 1996 and the world has looked the other way, except to condemn Israel when it has acted in self-defense.
You cannot negotiate with such people, because to do so creates a new terror practice that they see works, which will be used more and exported. More Israelis will be kidnapped and held hostage and likely murdered. Suicide bombings in Israel resulted in suicide bombings in London in 2005. Sadly the only response is a massive millitary one, which will come.
Israel is in fact a very small country and its army is truly a citizen's one. Each death and loss is heartbreaking and personal.
You can read the article of the the mother of Nachshon Wachsman (z"l), the last Israeli soldier abducted in 1994 at:
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/7333773.html
Most Americans,if faced with these same circumstances and daily threats to their lives IMHO would regardless of their politics, seek a harsh and violent response to end such a threat. The people of Israel are supposed to accept such terror and loss of life stoically and angelically. Which is against human nature.
Bob K-
Israel makes no apologies for being a democracy. It has arab parties and far right Israeli parties, religious parties and a anti-religious party,and even a pensioners' party in addition to the names you know, Kadima, Labour, and Likud.
Israelis disagree and fight over their politics,like any other country. Israeli arab politicians attempt to get every benefit they can for their own ethnic group, and also do not want to appear disloyal to their fellow Arab's causes, particularly the Palestinian one. They have in some instances attempted to bridge the gaps between Israelis and Palestinians.
Hoops-
Given your broadbased humanitarianism I am suprised you are not now in Darfur and not SOMA. While you want everyone to do "what is right" it seems to me that you should be starting with those that do the most wrong, which would be the Arab countries in this instance.
You will forgive me, I hope, for my resulting opinion that you need a bit more seasoning from life experience and perhaps your typing fingers should not get ahead of your thought process.
|
Larry Seltzer
Citizen
Username: Elvis
Post Number: 62
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Plenty of democratic countries, England for one, have no written consitution. That by itself means nothing. As others have pointed out, arabs in Israel can vote and serve in the parliament and publicly speak views in opposition to the government. That alone makes them more politically free than the average arab in any arab country (with the arguable exception of Iraq now).
Why would arabs in Israel hold views counter to those of most israelis Bob? They're arabs and most israelis are jews. There's an ethnic conflict and they feel alliegence to other arabs more than to jews in their own nation. I understand it at a certain level, but having rights as a minority doesn't mean you get have your way politically. |
Larry Seltzer
Citizen
Username: Elvis
Post Number: 63
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 4:18 pm: |
|
>>Israel is in fact a very small country...
This is an important point that comes across as a cliche at times. There are places in Israel where you can literally see from one side of the country to the other. Stand at the top of the Golan Heights and you can see across all of northern Israel. Pre-1967 Isreal is about 9 miles wide in its most populous area. They have very good reason to worry about their defense, especially with a long history of being attacked. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12014
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Larry, my point was that even though they can vote, are relatively afluent as compared to Arabs in other countries (although not the Jewish Israelis), etc. they aren't, in general, with the program. The post was to point out a logic problem with FvF's post.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12015
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 5:02 pm: |
|
Last I checked British common law wasn't religious based. The Israeli common law is.
So, is it now ok to put the Ten Commandments in Congress?
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1593
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 5:47 pm: |
|
fvf - please keep your condescension to yourself. Your opinion is no more valid then mine.
Frankly many of your postings border on fanaticism themselves. If you are so concerned about this issue why dont you go and join either the Israeli army or better yet join as a private citizen Erinys International and go be a contractor in Iraq.
http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=perelman20040218608
I am more then certain you would be a welcome addition to their crew.
|
Larry Seltzer
Citizen
Username: Elvis
Post Number: 64
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Israel doesn't have common law. Religious law applies (but is not exclusive) in some matters, such as marriage and divorce, but it's not just jewish law. Here's an excerpt from "A Guide to the Israeli Legal System" by a researcher at the Law Library of Congress:Israel has left the preexisting law of family relations virtually untouched. Thus, religious law (Jewish, Moslem, Christian, etc.) applies as a source of law in matters relating to marriage and divorce, litigated before religious courts. Such application is subject to the law of the land and to the supervision of the Supreme Court.
The State of Israel is described in the Declaration of Independence as both a Jewish State and a democracy which will respect human rights. Although not manifested by full application of Jewish law, the Jewishness of the state nevertheless is manifested by certain legislation and case law. For example, the Law of Return, 1950, provides for the right of every Jew to immigrate to Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship in accordance to the Nationality Law, 1952. In addition, Foundation of Law, 5740-1980 provides that if the court finds no answer to a legal question in statutory law, case law, or by analogy, it “shall decide it in the light of the principles of freedom, justice, equity and peace of Israel’s heritage.”
Personally I prefer the American approach, but this is pretty moderate even for the democratic world. Remember in England the monarch is head of both church and state. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page