Polls see easy election win for Netanyahu, Israeli right

[azurnoir]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks set for easy re-election in an Israeli ballot early next year and may end up with a bigger coalition than he has today, according to polls published on Thursday.

A proposal to dissolve parliament and set a January 22 election date will be submitted for cabinet approval on Sunday and then brought to the legislature next week, government officials said.

A survey in Maariv newspaper saw Netanyahu's rightist Likud party taking 29 of parliament's 120 seats, up from its current 27. Likud's two most powerful rivals, center-left Labor and a new centrist movement under former TV anchor Yair Lapid, would trail in the vote with 17 seats each, Maariv found.

Projecting from its own poll, Haaretz newspaper said the next coalition government, led by Likud and comprising mostly religious or nationalist parties, could command 68 parliamentary seats, up from today's 66.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/11/us-israel-election-polls-idUSBRE89A0AL20121011

[Deep13]

1. Well, it hardly seems worth it, but here I go...

boo!!

[montanacowboy]

2. Asshole right over there

same as the asshole right over here - all they want is war war war war and more war

when will we ever be rid of these fuckers

[madaboutharry]

3. That is a shame.

Keep the public in fear and the right wing wins.

[Harry_Scrote]

4. Israel

...tilts right-wing? Has it always?

[azurnoir]

5. well that depends on ones defination of right and left wings

there are those that would proclaim Israel to ultra liberal based solely on its LGBT laws and allowing abortion (the US 'litmus' tests), and those that think there are other factors that should be included, as for myself I've become painfully aware of how low the US bar for liberal vs conservative is really set as compared to other Western countries

[oberliner]

7. No, it's a very recent phenomenon

Israel traditionally was dominated by a strong left-wing Labor party that consistently had electoral success.

The rise of Likud and the even more RW religious parties only goes back a few decades.

[azurnoir]

11. Traditionally? Like when former terrorist Yitzak Shamir was PM or when Bibi was PM in the 90's?

shall we go on? However thanks for making my point the standard for liberal and left wing are quite different

[eyl]

12. He did spcify

several decades.

The left was pretty much unchallanged until Begin was elected, and the right only became dominant with the start of the second intifada.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Before then.

Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2012, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Begin became PM in the late 70s; and before that, all Prime Ministers in the 30 years since statehood in 1948 had been Labour.

[oberliner]

21. Bibi didn't become PM in the late 70s

He became PM in 1996 for one three year term, and then again in 2009.

The first non-Labor PM was Menachem Begin in the late 70s. In the 30 years prior, all PM's had been Labor. Maybe that's what you meant.

The 80s and 90s saw the PM-ship bouncing back and forth between Likud and Labor (with Labor PM Rabin's being a particularly tragic and noteworthy turning point).

The 2000's saw the Kadima phenomenon which seems to have run its course.

[LeftishBrit]

24. Sorry, I meant Begin (obviously I have Bibi on the brain). I have now edited my post

Though I was very young, I actually remember how upset my leftwing Israeli relatives were when Likud got elected for the first time.

[Ken Burch]

51. I think he meant up until 1977.

Labor was in power continuously for the first twenty-nine years of Israel's history.

And, while the establishment of a long-term West Bank Occupation took place under Labor prime ministers Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir(the latter being a person who at one time was a hero of mine), that same period also saw Menachem Begin's pre-Likud right-wing party brought into a national unity government for the first time.

[bemildred]

10. Since around the last time Bibi was PM. nt

[shaayecanaan]

33. Demographics...

The Zionist movement was originally made up of secular, socialist, kibbutz-dwelling types who were reliably left wing, and the Labour party was the natural government of Israel for quite some time.

Over the past three decades, large numbers of Russians migrated to Israel, who were generally right wing. Also, one of the fastest growing populations is the ultra-Orthodox, who are certainly not of the Left when it comes to the Arabs.

It should also be noted that a sacrosanct rule of (Jewish) Israeli politics is to never rely on the support of the Arab parties, in the face of Jewish opposition. If a Labour government, for example, relied on the Arab parties to get the numbers for a bill it would be a huge scandal. Accordingly, neither side of politics will ever form any kind of coalition with the Arab parties, and so they are effectively sidelined.

Basically, the way it all adds up, right wing parties will be in power in Israel for the foreseeable future.

[shira]

34. The vast majority of Israeli Zionists are still leftwing.

The problem nowadays is how neo-progressive, anti-liberal, left-wing fascists have redefined what it means to be liberal or leftwing.

Years ago, the left was (in the case of Israel) for peace based on two states. The right was for one state.

Now that most Israelis are for peace based on 2 states, the goalposts have changed.

Those claiming to be leftwing nowadays (neo-progressive, anti-liberals) are for one-state (so long as it's Palestinian ruled) and against two. In fact, they label as right-wingers just about any Zionist who is for two-states these days.

[LeftishBrit]

35. It is certainly NOT the case that all leftwingers support one state!

And it is not true that 'the vast majority of Israeli Zionists are leftwing', any more than is the case in most other countries.

According to the vote in 2009, 52.47% of Israelis voted for Likud or other right-wing parties. Even if one makes the questionable assumption that Kadima is on the left, only 38.67% voted for leftwing parties. (5.76% voted for Arab nationalist parties, and the rest voted for parties that failed to reach the threshold for the Knesset.)

2009 was a particularly bad year, but I would say that Israelis are at best split 50-50 between right and left, just as is the case in the USA, UK, and many other places.

[shira]

37. Didn't say that. Most Israeli left-wingers are for 2 states....

In fact, nearly all are.

The Left that we disagree about are those who exhibit fascist tendencies and tend to be illiberal and neo-progressive. You may see them as your ideological allies. I do not.

[LeftishBrit]

38. I don't see 'those who exhibit fascist tendencies' as left-wing

I don't know what 'neo-progressive' means. Are you referring to Soviet-style communists?

I think the difference between is is that your primary issue is Israel; mine is public services and preservation of the welfare state. In my view anyone, especially in the current economy, who actively promotes a so-called 'smaller state' involving reduction in public services or opposition to the welfare state, or who treats poverty as a result of moral failings, is a MONSTER OF PURE INDESCRIBABLE EVIL, even if they are an ardent two-stater on I/P. You seem to use support for Israel as your main criterion, and therefore put in the same category people whom I consider poles apart.

To me the key difference between 'liberal' and 'leftist' is that a liberal supports capitalism and the free market, but with a safety-net for the poor and vulnerable whereas a leftist supports a relatively controlled economy and an emphasis on the public sector. I prefer leftists in the Europaean context, though I do not support absolute communism, total state control, or the abolition of the private sector. I greatly prefer both leftists and liberals to right-wingers who oppose a safety-net. In any case, economic views do not equate to support for/ opposition to Israel, and I do not like your broadbrush attacks on 'the left' - not because I support left-totalitarianism or for that matter anti-Zionism, but because I support the fight for public services and against laissez-faire economics!

I know that the vast majority of Israeli leftists are for 2 states, as am I. I did not disagree with that at all, but with the statement that most Israelis are on the left. Many are, but many - at the moment, probably a larger number - aren't.

[shira]

39. Let's go with your definition of leftist vs. liberal...

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2012, 06:24 AM - Edit history (2)

To me the key difference between 'liberal' and 'leftist' is that a liberal supports capitalism and the free market, but with a safety-net for the poor and vulnerable whereas a leftist supports a relatively controlled economy and an emphasis on the public sector. I prefer leftists in the Europaean context, though I do not support absolute communism, total state control, or the abolition of the private sector. I greatly prefer both leftists and liberals to right-wingers who oppose a safety-net.

I agree with you here.

And the fact is that the VAST majority of (Jewish) Israelis - and Jews worldwide - are leftists & liberals according to that definition (charity/kindness is one of the key, core values of Judaism). When I mentioned one vs. two state supporters, that definition of liberal/leftist was taken for granted. There are VERY few Jewish people who are against safety nets or for uncontrolled capitalism. IOW, very few right-wingers.

========

Do you see as leftwing those with fascist tendencies who are left-wing (economically)?

As to neo-progressivism, I'll leave you with this:

...the most disturbing political trend of our time: the rise of a new absolutist ideology, one that is global, anti-liberal, anti-American, anti-Semitic, and pro-Islamofascist, and despite being irreligious is also—and this will require explanation—anti-secular.

...


The most remarkable feature of the cult of Empire-hatred is that it produces disdain for those whose suffering does not meet the cult's attribution of global evil. Exhibit number one is Darfur. Though an "an ocean of indifference and cowardice" condemned the Darfuris, the anti-liberals, anti-imperialists, and anti-globalists "earned a special distinction" (p. 141).

It is this anti-imperial obsession that makes Rony Brauman, onetime president of Doctors Without Borders and author of the French postscript to Norman Finkelstein's Holocaust Industry, "blind and deaf to the tragedy of the Darfuris" (p. 137). Brauman, Robert Nesbitt, Noam Chomsky, and other intellectuals turn strangely silent on Darfur or attribute the whole hullabaloo to an American or Zionist plot. The NGO anti-racism meeting in Durban in 2001 mustered the crowds to chant "One Jew, one bullet," but cold-shouldered the Africans who wanted to spotlight Rwanda genocides; forgot the plight of the 260 million Dalit untouchables; ignored the cause of the Roma in Eastern Europe; and omitted from its final declaration the massacres in Chechnya and the Balkans.

If you're a Nuba being exterminated in the Sudan, or Burmese, Syrian Kurd, or Liberian, well, "You're out of luck," Lévy writes. You're not oppressed by the American/Zionist/Imperialist axis, so "you're a hundred times less important, a thousand times less interesting to progressive consciences," than is an Islamist so humiliated that he must resort to terrorism to heal his humiliation (p. 140). That "maniacal negationist" Noam Chomsky whitewashes the Cambodian genocide, lest the world comes to be revolted by a crime America could not be accused of; and then rewrites the history of ethnic cleansing in Serbia to place it after the NATO air strikes, and hence makes it a response to Imperial aggression, once again to give Empire no quarter (pp. 141–42).

....


If you're Fidel Castro and manage the true gulag in the Caribbean, but are on the right side of the Empire/Anti-Empire divide, Lévy writes, you get the honor of closing the Durban conference. And if you're Hugo Chavez you get, from the neoprogressive intellectuals, free pass to clamp down on the free press, to attempt to become life-president, and to declare that the world economy is under the thrall of descendants of Christ-killers. For Brauman, Chomsky, and other anti-teachers, as Lévy calls them, the theorem of Empire has sets the barbaric norm, to which the epigraph to this review refers: "to choose the side of the perpetrators and not of the victims; to tell the victims that they're bad victims and their destinies don't matter to the world; to impose silence, in a word, on oppressed people who disturb the [Empire/Anti-Empire] conceptual order of the world" (p. 145).

Anti-Semitic, Pro-Islamofascist

The neoprogressives' Evil is, of course, also Zionist. There was early anti-Semitism against alleged killers of Christ; enlightenment anti-Semitism for Jews' having given birth to Christianity; nationalist anti-Semitism for Jews' statelessness; social anti-Semitism for their being capitalist blood-suckers; and racist anti-Semitism for their being the anti-race. Now the hatred is against the Jew who brazenly monopolize the world's limited stock of victimhood, the better to pursue his Zionist-Imperialist conquest (pp. 147–66).

It is all too drearily familiar to be worth repeating here, except for the conclusion that Lévy shares with Pierre André Taguieff: that when the neoprogressive NGO's joined in the Jew-hatred at Durban, they killed antifascism. Just a year later, the Movement against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples—a group apparently well regarded at the United Nations—confirmed the death at a protest marked by the chant "Death to the Jews" (p. 174). The neoprogressives kidnapped the heroic symbols of anti-Nazism for their furious, merciless crusade against Israel, turning anti-racism into a Stalinist instrument (p. 165).

http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=288&zenid=15891b1fb6cfe4815931bdf9ba49aeaf

It appears to me that you see the people described in this excerpt as fellow esteemed leftist allies, so long as they're economically leftwing, and supposedly anti-war. To me, their economic views are incidental. And to use your language, these people are MONSTERS OF PURE INDESCRIBABLE EVIL, imho.

[LeftishBrit]

43. Do I see as leftist those with fascist tendencies who are leftist economically?

No, not if they have true fascist tendencies.

I certainly consider Stalinists monstrous for example. I would never call them 'neoprogressives'. In the UK at any rate, 'progressive' was never used as a political term until recently (it was often used for education) and nowadays seems to be used so loosely that it can refer to anyone who is not FAR right. Cameron has called himself 'progressive'.

I am not nearly so interested in defining exactly who are and aren't my 'allies' as in fighting for particular causes. Most of my real allies are people whom you'll never have heard of, who are involved in citizens' groups supporting the NHS, or in groups promoting education-related causes. With regard to I/P, my allies are the likes of Peace Now and the One Voice Movement, both of which support two states.

I do not like Castro or any such dictator.

You are the one who is lumping all 'the left' together (at least, outside Israel), not me. The way you equate the term 'leftists' with 'supporters of leftist dictatorships' or 'supporters of all opponents of the USA, however right-wing' is just like the way some people equate the term 'Zionists' with 'right-wing settlers'.

Your assuming that because I'm against attacks on 'the left' as such, I must consider all anti-imperialists (presumably including the likes of Mugabe) as my 'esteemed allies', is just like certain people thinking that because I'm against Hamas and for Israel's right to exist, I must be pro-Occupation; or that because I criticize the Iranian government I must want to bomb Iran!

[bemildred]

45. Orwell understood 70 years ago that totalitarian politics renders left-right social-economic

issues meaningless. So talking left-right makes no sense in the context of totalitarian rule, there has to be some accountability and debate, otherwise everybody is going to do what the boss says regardless or be punished until they do.

This is an example of trying to mash two incompatible ideas together in order to smear one of them ("the left&quot , because "the left" is correctly perceived to oppose the settlement project and the other more egregious aspects of Israeli policy WRT the Palestinians.

[Ken Burch]

63. Well put, but I'm not sure that most leftists still want "a relatively controlled economy"

A lot of us support things like worker management and democratic decision-making, which isn't so much about the old "centralized planning" bugbear(Achieve The Five-Year Plan In Four Years...Exceed the Bauxite Quota...etc)as it is about creating an economy in which we all have a say and in which no one is treated as "deadwood".

The next left is going to need to draw on the libertarian/economic democracy tradition that the Soviets crushed at Krondstadt in order to create a model that will appeal to the simultaneous need most people feel for economic security and personal autonomy.

Sorry for the digression, just wanted to engage with what you posted above.

[Ken Burch]

62. Most of those left-wingers are AGAINST the Occupation

(A few hesitantly support it, before anybody else jumps in, but most don't)

And 100% of them are against any more settlement expansion.

Those Israeli left-wingers(a group I admire, for the record)see unquestioning "pro-Israel" people in the States as a real threat to peace. Your position does nothing but give aid and comfort to Bibi and the craziest factions in his coalition.

If you want a two-state solution, stop demonizing opponents of the Occupation and the settlements.

And stop acting as if the whole thing is the Palestinians' fault. There's equal blame on both sides.

[shira]

64. They're also 1-staters in the Ali Abunimah & Gilad Atzmon camps....

Those who are pro-Hamas, anti-semitic, racist, bigots - calling for the destruction of Israel and an absolute bloodbath - shouldn't be admired by any decent person.

[Ken Burch]

65. OK...and you know perfectly well I don't admire such people...

I despise Atzmon's views and believe he should be committed to a mental institution.

What the antizionists say isn't really the point. BTW, I suspect a lot of them wouldn't BE antizionists if there hadn't been all those decades when even support of a two-state solution was equated with "calling for the destruction of Israel". It was always clear, from the moment the Six Day War ended, that the Palestinians would have to get their own state, so what was the point of anathemizing that idea until 1994? There was no other workable way to end the war. It was certainly never a moral or workable solution to expect Palestinians to accept either moving to Jordan or remaining perpetually stateless where they were, for God's sake. And it was also never realistic to just turn the West Bank back over TO Jordan, because Palestinians don't want to be Jordanians and never did.

[shira]

67. It's not just Atzmon. Abunimah and his gang are just as bad....

They're only pissed at Atzmon and Berlin for being more openly honest WRT their views on Jews.

And now you're excusing the bigotry and hatred of anti-zionists; blaming it on those who were originally against a 2 state solution. Rather than placing blame for bigotry on the bigots themselves.

Classy.

FYI, the Palestinians were very publicly calling for their own state IN PLACE OF ISRAEL until 1994. Jordan didn't renounce all claims to the West Bank until the late 80's. The PLO charter didn't make any claims towards Gaza or the West Bank until it was changed much later.

So really, WTF was there to negotiate WRT a 2 state solution prior to Jordan renouncing all claims to the WB?

Israel's Western haters, BTW, were calling for its destruction as early as the 1950's.

[shaayecanaan]

40. Israeli Jews are predominantly right wing

The ADL's most recent survey, for example, found that 50% of Israeli Jews identified as right wing or right-leaning, 31% as centrist, and only fifteen percent left-wing or left-leaning. If anything, the rightward tendency amongst self-described "Israeli Zionists" would be even higher.

http://www.adl.org/Israel/Israeli-public-views-of-the-US-poll-June-2012.pdf

[bemildred]

46. Shhh. nt

[eyl]

49. I'm not sure how representative that poll is

given that, e.g., according to it, Kadima got only 4% of the votes (even if you drop the 33% which voted for "other parties" or didn't vote, it still comes out to 6%) - which as you yourself have pointed out in this thread, wasn't the case.

[shaayecanaan]

50. They didn't poll Israeli Arabs

remember that Kadima was the only non-Arab party to explicitly endorse the two-state solution in the 2009 elections. Kadima may well have gotten a larger share of the Arab vote than the Jewish one.

I agree with your point, however there have been other polls that echo this one on the issue of political identification. There was a Haaretz poll not too long ago in which about 6% of Jewish Israelis identified as left wing.

[Ken Burch]

61. The problem has been that this Israeli government, in particular

has done everything it could to sabotage any chance of a two-state solution, with its perpetuation of the Occupation combined with its completely unjustified insistence on continued settlement expansion.

And no, that's not true that the left labels any two-state supporter as right-wing. Those they label as right-wing are the ones who refuse to publicly condemn or who actually publicly defend the Occupation and the settlement expansion...and those who refuse to admit that Palestinian anger is driven by legitimate grievances, but is simply old-time antisemitism(the truth is, there are Palestinians who resent Israel, and some who have been driven to hatred of Jewish people as well, which is wrong and shouldn't have happened, but they do also have every right to regard the Occupation and the continued land theft as injustices, and anyone who claims to be a two-state solution advocate, as I am, needs to acknowledge that Palestinians do have a right to their anger).

Denial of the legitimacy of Palestinian grieveance towards the Israeli government(one's feelings about tactics aside) IS right-wing.

Equation of nearly all criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism IS right-wing.

Accepting support from American evangelical "Christian Zionists&quot many of whom are, themselves, antisemites and who want to eventually see a "Last Days" scenario in which Jews are forced to choose between conversion or death)is not only right-wing but, essentially, suicidal.

Defense of the Occupation IS right-wing.

Defense of continued settlement expansion IS right-wing.

Demonization of legitimate dissent IS right-wing.

If you favor a two-state solution, you have an obligation to call for and work for the defeat of the Likud government and the vicious, hateful right-wing minor parties that support it.

[shira]

66. At least we agree on wanting Likud out

Ali Abunimah, Gilad Atzmon and all their fans, colleagues, and acquaintences in FreeGaza, the ISM, and BDS (both anti-zionists as well as so-called zionists who may as well be anti-zionist) cannot stand liberal zionists. They are too busy equating Zionism with racism and denouncing anyone who is Zionist as a terrible, racist bigot. Those for the Nazi agenda against Palestinians.

Abunimah just signed onto a letter condemning Greta Berlin, antisemitism, racism, and Zionism (equating the movement with racism and bigotry).

He has also called PeaceNow a rightwing, racist organization.

Abunimah wrote: “It's racist to think Jews need a special state and can't live with other people. Aren't they human like the rest of us.”

He also wrote: “Supporting Zionism is not atonement for the Holocaust, but its continuation in spirit.”

Stated that Abbas and Fayyad were collaborators.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/electronic_intifada_and_ali_abunimah_factsheet

A very ugly movement. There's literally NO ONE out there among the 1-state, anti-occupation, frothing at the mouth, anti-Israel Left denouncing such a bigot. Obviously, they're used to that and don't mind it. There's every reason to believe they share his feelings.

Now as to your points:

Denial of the legitimacy of Palestinian grieveance towards the Israeli government(one's feelings about tactics aside) IS right-wing.

Agreed, but so is denial of the legitimacy of Israeli grievances towards the Arab world's leadership (including Palestinians).

Equation of nearly all criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism IS right-wing.

Agreed, but it's also rightwing to equate all criticism of Palestinian leadership with bigotry.

Accepting support from American evangelical "Christian Zionists&quot many of whom are, themselves, antisemites and who want to eventually see a "Last Days" scenario in which Jews are forced to choose between conversion or death)is not only right-wing but, essentially, suicidal.

Touchy subject there. Even though they tend to be far right-wing conservatives, I'm not sure the majority of them have ill intent towards Jews. Many of them feel, right or wrong, that they're doing God's work, those who bless Israel are blessed, etc. For christian anti-Semites, there are plenty who (for hundreds of years) hate Jews; thinking they're cursed by God, that they're christ killers, and bringing about the devil's work (anti-christ). Let's not even pretend these types don't exist within the anti-zionist movement. They're as rightwing as it gets.

Defense of the Occupation IS right-wing.

You're deliberately confusing defense of the occupation with not repeating what happened WRT Gaza since 2005. Not wanting history to repeat itself is not equivalent to defending the occupation.

Defense of continued settlement expansion IS right-wing.

Not necessarily. In any reasonable deal, Israel gets what everyone know will eventually be annexed along with land swaps. Being for settlement in areas known to go to Israel is not right-wing and you'll find PLENTY of liberal zionists in Israel for it.

Demonization of legitimate dissent IS right-wing.

As it is WRT legitimate criticism of Hamas and the PLO.

If you favor a two-state solution, you have an obligation to call for and work for the defeat of the Likud government and the vicious, hateful right-wing minor parties that support it.

Same WRT calling and working for the defeat of Hamas and their vicious and hateful right & left wing friends who support them.

[Ken Burch]

68. Criticize Hamas and Fatah all you want.

The main difference between the two of us there is that, while I have problems with the current Palestinian leadership, I reject the idea that the existence of that leadership somehow justifies perpetuating the status quo(and especially, that the existence of that leadership somehow validates settlement expansion). It is already clear that there is no chance that carrying out the existing policies in the West Bank can EVER lead to the emergence of a better Palestinian leadership. All continuing the status quo CAN do is do shore up popular support for that leadership and for harder-line options.

[shira]

69. Israel's harshest critics rarely, if ever, criticize them...

...leading me to believe they support their cause. Otherwise, why wouldn't they say something about the way Palestinian leadership treats Palestinians (if they care so much about Palestinians)? Why wouldn't they say something about Hamas/Fatah incitement of Palestinians to violence and hatred against Jews (which only guarantees the conflict continues for more generations)? Why don't Israel haters condemn rocket attacks with as much passion and fury as they do every minor Israeli infraction? The answer seems obvious to me. They support what Hamas/Fatah do. They support the "resistance" (terror) against Jews. They hate Jews just as much or more than Hamas/Fatah. They don't give a crap about Palestinians. It's all about getting the hated Jews.

Is there any other reasonable explanation?

[Ken Burch]

70. Actually, yes.

They probably think that Bibi and Co. will take their criticism as justification to continue the Occupation and continue expanding settlements(even though neither of those things have any chance whatsoever of changing the Palestinian leadership). It's not about hatred of Jews...it's about not wanting to give aid and comfort to the occupying forces in the West Bank.

You can't just assume that the sole motivation for any critic of Israeli security policy is antisemitism...or even that that's the case with all antizionists. Reducing everything to that, insisting that everyone who disagrees with you on this "hates Jews" isn't a useful way to think. It's simply an excuse to avoid dealing with the real issues that to demand loyalty for loyalty's sake among pro-Israel people. It helps discourage the kind of critical thinking that's needed to come up with ideas that both sides in this can live up to.

And antizionist activists in Europe, the UK or North America aren't the ones who are going to be deciding how all of this comes out. It will be the actions of the Israeli government and the Palestinians, both above and below, that decides that.

Your fixation with denouncing antizionists is a waste of your time. You'd do far better to publicly call on the Israeli government to stop doing the things that drive people to the conclusion that a single state is the only way to resolve this dispute fairly-and to admit that there's blame for the dispute on both sides.

[shira]

71. You really think demonization of Israel is the reason....

...for the occupation/settlements?

Seriously?

I don't believe that has a damned thing to do with it. It's about rockets and suicide bombers. That's the root cause, and anti-zionist buffoons have not and will not do a damned thing but keep on supporting Hamas.

Bibi has nothing to do with it. The demonization, dehumanization, and anti-semitism LONG preceded Bibi.

=======

Lastly, you're telling me that those who support "resistance/terror", deny the vile antisemitic incitement throughout Palestinian media, government & educational institutions, and never say a word against Hamas and company about the way they treat Palestinians.....aren't hateful?

Really?

[azurnoir]

72. Religious Zionist parties unite for Knesset campaign

The National Union party and the Habayit Hayehudi-New National Religious Party announced Wednesday they will unite and run under a joint platform in the next Knesset elections.

The announcement was made in a festive press conference but tensions were felt in the room. It has yet to be decided who will head the list and the parties have not reached an agreement on its makeup.

....................................................

The New National Religious Party was represented by Rabbi Zalman Melamed while Habayit Hayehudi was represented by Rabbi Eitan Eiseman.

MK Yaakov Katz said that a united list could land the new entity 15 Knesset seats. "The prime minister is a bit concerned but we will help him build a healthy society and healthy politics and will serve as a pillar for the next government."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4294126,00.html

[shira]

73. Look, even if Meretz won ALL the seats, the anti-zio....

...Jew-haters wouldn't bat an eyelash.

We all know that.

Nothing less than full surrender, right of return, etc... would do for them. Meretz may as well be Likud to them. They're practically the same to Hamas and the PLO. So Meretz/Likud are the same to western Jew haters as well.

FFS, zionism is considered racism by Abunimah, Atzmon, and all their fans.

Meretz is zionist.

Therefore, Meretz is just as bad as Likud.

[azurnoir]

74. are you making pies with those cherries?

you know the 2 that were picked out of a statement made by Palestinians ?

here is what was really said

We the undersigned, as Palestinians living in historic Palestine and the diaspora, in the spirit of past statements, and in light of recent controversies, write to reaffirm a key principle of our movement for freedom, justice, and equality: The struggle for our inalienable rights is one opposed to all forms of racism and bigotry, including, but not limited to, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Zionism, and other forms of bigotry directed at anyone, and in particular people of color and indigenous peoples everywhere.

We oppose the cynical and baseless use of the term anti-Semitism as a tool for stifling criticism of Israel or opposition to Zionism, as this assumes simply because someone is Jewish, they support Zionism or the colonial and apartheid policies of the state of Israel - a false generalization.

Our struggle is anchored in universal human rights and international law in opposition to military occupation, settler-colonialism, and apartheid, something people of conscience of all ethnicities, races, and religions can support.

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/struggle-palestinian-rights-incompatible-any-form-racism-or-bigotry-statement

BTW there are 116 signatories to that statement

eta that you and others wish to reduce this to they said Zionism is racism is IMO quite a statement in and of itself

[shira]

81. If you wish to ignore that anti-zios have 100% absolutely equated Zionism....

....with other forms of bigotry and racism, have at it.

You can deny it all you want. That's your right. However, there's no point in us continuing unless we're debating actual reality.

Abunimah, Atzmon and all their clones (clowns) believe anti-zionism = racism and naziism. They believe ALL zionists are bigots. That's a fact.

[azurnoir]

82. luv the way you accuse Palestinians of equating Zionism with Naziism, because it wasn't mentioned

and equate Ali Abunimah with Gilad Atzmon when indeed the statement was in opposition to Atzmon's and Greta Berlin's antisemitic statements, I know though it must be so difficult when the 'favored' narrative isn't being followed

the way Zionism has manifested itself for Palestinians living in the diaspora and those living under Israeli military rule there certainly is bigotry along with a few other things mentioned in the statement

[shira]

83. More outright denial.

The struggle for our inalienable rights is one opposed to all forms of racism and bigotry, including, but not limited to, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Zionism, and other forms of bigotry directed at anyone.

There's no other way to interpret that statement. Zionism is a form of racism and bigotry. That makes anyone who supports Zionism a racist or bigot.

It's why Peace Now is considered rightwing and bigoted by Abunimah, Atzmon, and company.

Here's Abunimah blasting J-Street for its bigotry...
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/teaching-young-people-hate-ugly-face-j-streets-anti-palestinian-bigotry-exposed

Here's a Mondoweiss article by Phillip Weiss claiming Peace Now is bigoted, as well as Amos Oz...
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/peace-now-video-against-binational-state-features-scary-soundtrack-muslim-call-to-prayer.html

Like I wrote earlier, they hate liberal zionists.

=======

This isn't just about Zionism being racist/bigoted, but Zionists themselves.

[azurnoir]

84. last post it was Nazi's now its Phil Weiss who has nothing to do with this either

and I denied nothing, I presented a bigger picture and context, something that has clearly upset you

[shira]

85. The point is that those bloggers confirm Zionists are bigots/racists...

...just as that quote very explicitly states.

You're just in denial, defending the indefensible.

And the nazi allegation is true as well.

Maybe if you wish it away, it's as if none of it is really happening.

[azurnoir]

89. so the red herrings you throw in are facts? The statement was against bigotry

Abunimah has strongly condemned Berlin and her ilk, I understand that doesn't work for you but it does not change it either, delegitimize that anyway you wish, I've seen it opined that it is because she's White as well, seems that there is a need for everything to be fit in a little box but it simply doesn't work

[shira]

91. It was a bigoted statement against bigotry. A complete joke.

Do you require more evidence Abunimah is just as bigoted as Greta Berlin?

[azurnoir]

93. more evidence? why do you state your opinion as if it was the absolute truth?

you have your opinion it nothing more than that, same goes for mine which to belabor what I've been saying is that for Palestinians today the manner in which Zionism has manifested or actualized itself in their lives represents bigotry.

the fact that you refuse to recognize that is a microcosm of the whole I/P problem, it seems you'd rather point fingers and screech antisemitism or bigotry, lump all Pro-Palestinians or antzio's as you call them in to one group with a neat little label than actually consider the statement in full

[shira]

96. It's not opinion. The US State Dept. defines anti-semitism....

...in accordance with the EUMC working definition.

Abunimah and gang meet almost all the criteria.

That's no mere coincidence.

[azurnoir]

104. the Bush administration used from the EU definition the 'working' one that was actually shelved

and never formally adopted, is that what your talking about? Abunimah points out that to call antiZionism antisemitism means collectively grouping all Jews a one group something that is included as antisemitism in that EU definition

[King_David]

86. You may be uncomfortable with the fact these 100+ signatories exposed themselves

As the vile antisemites that they are ...

Anyway you want to slice or dice it... They did say "Zionism is Racism"

Sick !!!

"We the undersigned, as Palestinians living in historic Palestine and the diaspora, in the spirit of past statements, and in light of recent controversies, write to reaffirm a key principle of our movement for freedom, justice, and equality: The struggle for our inalienable rights is one opposed to all forms of racism and bigotry, including, but not limited to, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Zionism, and other forms of bigotry directed at anyone, and in particular people of color and indigenous peoples everywhere. "

[azurnoir]

90. Not nearly as 'uncomfortable' as some seem to be with Abunimah condemning Berlin n/t

[King_David]

92. Same difference and level of comfort as if David Duke did it

He probably approves that message..

What the difference to Bnai Israel which one ?

[azurnoir]

94. so "THEY" are all the same

okay then but please explain B'nai Israel, which seems to be if memory serves the name of several synagogues?

[King_David]

95. It's The Jewish Nation

Zionism etc...

Jews ... Including Naturei Karta and Chomsky and Finklestein .. The Tribe = Bnei Yisrael ..

[azurnoir]

105. so you are collectively grouping all Jews as one group, correct? n/t

[King_David]

107. You asked

And the answer is : Bnei Israel

( you know different? Every single Jew is taught this, ask your friends )

Now you know.

[azurnoir]

111. lol you didn't answer the question

and 'ask' my Jewish friends, really what are you insinuating? that's alright its nothing that isn't known is it? identities and all?

[shira]

108. Seems you're comfortable with all of Abunimah's Israel=Nazi comparisons

Last edited Sat Oct 20, 2012, 09:14 AM - Edit history (3)

You like how he writes that J-Street and PeaceNow are rightwing, bigoted organizations?

(meaning just about all jews are bigots)

And even better, how do you like his support of terror attacks as a form of "resistance"?

(pro-terror)

Let me guess...

I shouldn't expect any direct answers despite your being quite comfortable with Abunimah, right?

[azurnoir]

112. seems your making things up but thats okay n/t

[shira]

115. Seems you're still uncomfortable answering the simplest questions. n/t

[azurnoir]

116. uncomfortable or not acquiescing ?

here is what Abunimah said about J-Street

Teaching young people to hate: the ugly face of J Street’s anti-Palestinian bigotry exposed
Submitted by Ali Abunimah on Sun, 08/19/2012 - 16:27

For years, J Street has posed as the kinder, gentler face of the Israel lobby, the alternative to hardline AIPAC.

Anyone who’s paid close attention knows that has never been the case, and behind the smiling exterior that J Street boss Jeremy Ben-Ami projects are similar hardcore anti-Palestinian views.

And it seems teaching anti-Palestinian bigotry to the young is part of J Street’s mission. Take a piece by Jeremy Zelinger, a J Street Summer 2012 Communications Intern, published on J Street’s website on 14 August which says (emphasis added):

I am not satisfied with a pro-Israel voice that shouts about military threats from Hezbollah but is silent about the demographic threat from a stateless Palestinian population. Just as Israel needs to prepare for war, it must also prepare for peace. A pro-Israel voice should express the importance of both

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/teaching-young-people-hate-ugly-face-j-streets-anti-palestinian-bigotry-exposed

now IMO part of the problem here and this has been discussed here before is that among ProPalestinians there is a clear lack of Palestinian voices , J-Street represent Israel's left not Palestinians. The same problem was pointed out about the Russell Tribunal

[oberliner]

117. Does Abunimah count as a Palestinian voice?

Even though he was born and raised in the United States?

[azurnoir]

118. yes he does just as some American Jews consider themselves voices of Israel

his mother is from Lifta and his father is from the West Bank

[oberliner]

119. Some American Jews consider themselves voices of Israel?

Even ones who weren't born there? Can you enumerate some?

[azurnoir]

120. Look around here I am sure you can find some

eta if memory serves you did not have any problems with Ray Hanania supposedly running for being leader of the PA (?), he was also born in Chicago, Abunimah is not attempting to to be an actual leader he is an activist

[azurnoir]

75. ps I just realized something

I meant to post the comment about the Religious Zionist parties as comment to the thread not to you, I had just finished reading your comment and decided to post that too seeing as how you had kicked the thread back up so that part was my mistake, sorry

[Ken Burch]

78. No, we DON'T all know that.

You just say that because you want to justify your "nothing can ever be changed/nothing can be questioned" mindset.

And it's demagoguery to equate everybody who questions Zionism with Hamas. There are huge differences between Hamas and most of the people in North America, the UK, and Europe about many I/P issues. It's simply wrong for you to act as if they're all part of a hivemind.

The status quo is not only bad for Palestinians, it's bad for Israeli Jews-and at some point, you've got to accept that and work to change the situation.

That is what you could do to help Israel. You don't help that country at all by focusing on trying to demonize and silence dissent and dissenters.

[shira]

79. All the leading anti-zios believe it. So yeah, WE DO KNOW that.

Abunimah, Atzmon and all their fans (which include FreeGaza, BDS, Mondoweiss, ISM, and PSC) all believe Zionism is racism and a form of bigotry. They constantly associate it with Naziism and they absolutely 100% cannot stand any type of Zionist - not even the ones from PeaceNow. Abunimah labels them right-wingers and bigots who don't want to be part of the human race living peacefully in a OSS alongside Arabs in the mideast.

As to equating people to Hamas, I'm not doing that. But they certainly do support Hamas' cause. When's the last time you ever saw any anti-Zios call Hamas out for inciting nazi-style, murderous hatred vs. Jews? Never. They simply deny and ignore it. And on top of that, anti-zios support Hamas' so-called "right" to resistance/terror against Jews, all of whom in Israel are fair game.

If that's not support, I don't know what is.

And for the last time, Israel doesn't use anti-zio criticism to justify the occupation/settlements. The problem is rockets and terror. And the anti-zio crowd supports rockets and terror as legitimate resistance.

[Ken Burch]

87. The PSC, by your own admission, repudiated Atzmon...so you can't call them his "fans".

n/t.

[shira]

110. PSC supporters (STILL) supporting Atzmon

PSC supporters (STILL) supporting Atzmon
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/01/10/psc-supporters-supporting-atzmon/

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Hamas
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/06/27/the-palestine-solidarity-campaign-and-hamas/

======

So let me guess.

Your defense of PSC is now that at least some of them have repudiated Atzmon, they're still okay despite being close to Hamas (supporting their agenda) while at the same time equating Israel with Nazi Germany?



Added Bonus:

Frank Barat is also a current member of the PSC. Remember his "peaceful" remark that a couple hundred thousand would have to die in order for a 1-state solution to come into being?

Even better...

Ken O'Keefe Believes Palestine Solidarity and neo-Nazism are Compatible
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2012/10/ken-okeefe-believes-palestine.html

[Ken Burch]

77. I did NOT say that "demonization of Israel" is the reason for the Occupation or the settlements

I said that the Occupation and the settlements are the reason for much(not all, but much) of the legitimate anger Palestinians and others feel towards the Israeli government (not "Israel&quot and it's excessive security and land confiscation policies.

You can't reduce all opposition to the status quo to "demonization". It's childish to insist on that.
People criticize the United States all the time with seeking to actually wipe IT off the map...why can't you accept that that can be the case with people who disagree with you on I/P.

Besides...if the antizionists DID criticize Hamas as much as you wanted them to...wouldn't you just come up with some OTHER hoop for them to jump through in order for you to stop anathemizing and villifying all of them?

Antisemitism is real. There are some antizionists who are antisemitic, and I condemn them all, as does every decent person in the world(I hope you condemn anti-Muslim and anti-Arab extremists with the same fervor, because those forms of hate are just like antisemitism). But in my experience, most antizionists are NOT hateful towards Jews. And most critics of Israeli security policy aren't calling for the destruction of Israel anyway(I suspect that a lot of people who identify as "antizionist" don't actually want to see Israel as a political entity brought to an end, but rather just don't feel obligated to always take Israel's side or to assume that it deserves special deference) as much as it is that they don't believe that the current Israeli power structure has any interest in actually ending the conflict. If you really want to change their minds(and I think at least some of those minds CAN be changed)then start publicly calling for the Israeli government to change what it is doing in the Territories. The hard line had its chance...it didn't really work...If you support Israel and want its situation to be better, you need to be pressing for its leaders to change their approach, and doing so in such a way that the world can SEE you doing that.


There are some gentile supporters of the Israeli right(like most Republicans, for example)who are essentially antisemitic(, in Great Britain, Balfour wanted a Jewish homeland to be created in what was then Palestine because he wanted as close to a Judenrein Britain as possible, and Harry Truman supported Israel's creation in part because he didn't want post World War II Jewish refugees coming to the U.S. in significant numbers...that's documented historical fact). And that sort of antisemitism is just as bad as the forms of it that exist in minority factions within the antizionist movement.

Reducing the whole question of fighting antisemitism to a DEMAND that everybody "support Israel&quot which is usually code for not only recognizing the state but automatically and unquestioningly taking the Israeli government's side against Palestinians on every issue)is the least-effective way to fight antisemitism. It's far more effective to fight it by fighting against ALL forms of bigotry(all of which are just as wrong and just as brutal as antisemitism).
I favor a two-state solution, but it's hard to make the case to anybody these days that the current Israeli government wants peace or should be believed to be seeking it.


In any case the antizionist activists you run in to in North America, the UK and much of Europe aren't going to be the ones deciding how all of this comes out. They aren't running governments. They aren't anywhere close to being in power anywhere. They don't have anywhere close to majority support in the areas I listed above.

I've laid out an alternative to your current position(pressuring the Israeli government to stop settlement expansion and to make a serious effort to actually start peace talks again)but you've rejected it in favor of your insistence on blaming the whole thing on the Palestinian leadership and on insisting that nothing can change UNTIL that leadership is removed? Why insist on sticking to that approach when you know it to be utterly futile? You know the Palestinians can't be made to change their leaders to suit Israel's demands. Why put leadership change on their side first when you DO know that to be true? And why act as though it's possible to end this without, to some degree, engaging Fatah and Hamas, when you know that, even if they end up not running any part of the Palestinian government anymore, they will still be heavily armed groups and it will still be impossible to wipe them out miitarily(if it's possible at all)WITHOUT causing massive loss of innocent Palestinian life...without, most likely, a scorched-earth bombing campaign like the U.S. used(unsuccessfully, as it turned out)to save its client regime in South Vietnam?

I never called for negotiations with Hamas or Fatah because I liked those groups. I called for it because there was and is no alternative to including them in negotiations if the war is to actually be ended. That's reality and it can't be avoided. What good does it do to REFUSE to accept that reality?

[shira]

80. If anti-zios criticized Hamas as they should be doing....

...that would go a LONG way to isolating Hamas & thereby letting them know they have no supporters out there for their rancid anti-Jewish bigotry. Hamas would know their terror wave vs. Jews is NOT being supported internationally. Hell, Hamas might even feel shamed for doing what they do and change their tune.

No rockets and suicide attacks = more Israeli trust to end the occupation/settlements.

Bibi would be replaced once again like he was in 1999 by another PM who'd have more trust in Palestinian leadership.

==============

And if anti-Zios are not hateful to Jews, tell me why....

a) they never, ever speak out against all that murderous, hateful incitement we see in those PMW videos?

b) they support terror/resistance against any Jew in Israel who is fair game to be murdered by religious fanatics?

==============

Lastly, it's not about what the Israeli government does or does not do. The Hamas are fanatical, psychopaths who REALLY, REALLY hate Jews and want them dead and/or expelled from Israel. They won't stop no matter what.

The anti-zios you are defending have the same mindset, and once again, DO support Hamas' cause.

They, like Hamas, cannot be reasoned with and they will not accept anything less than Israel's complete demise.

[Ken Burch]

88. You assume Hamas cares about what the world thinks of it.

And yes, it is, in significant measure, about what the Israeli government does. You can't seriously argue that Palestinian attitudes towards Israel and Israelis would be the same if the settlements WEREN'T being expanded, and the Occupation wasn't being entrenched(and entrenched to the point where the IDF was even destroying a bunch of harmless solar panels just because those panels were making the lives of innocent Palestinian civilians slightly easier).

Anybody, anywhere, would resist, by some means or another, the conditions the Israeli government is imposing on the West Bank(and the hardships it indirectly imposes on Gaza through the continued import restrictions and border restrictions). And anybody, anywhere, would resist those things no matter who was imposing them. It's absurd to suggest that the only reason Palestinians object to any of the above is that those things are being imposed by a state that claims to be Jewish.

The anti-zios are not crucial players in this(at least the ones I'm talking about...there's nothing you can do to change the opinions of people in Arab countries as long as the Occupation goes on...Israel has no right to claim to be the greater victim compared to Palestine as long as IDF troops remain on Palestinian soil...and it's not reasonable to have ever expected, at least once the Occupation and the settlements were established, that other Arabs WOULD accept that Israel and Israelis were the real victims IN THAT SPECIFIC DISPUTE.

The Israeli government has most of the power. The rise of Hamas, loathesome as it is, is a reflection of the desperation Palestinians feel about that. Therefore, the best way to weaken Hamas is to stop putting the screws to ordinary Palestinian civilians. Not brain surgery or rocket science to figure that out.

[shira]

97. You assume without support from western enablers....

...Hamas would keep doing what they do.

And it's not about the Israeli government. Give that one up. When the most dovish Israeli governments were trying to make peace and end the occupation/settlements, terror attacks vs. Israelis increased and were supported by the extremists' western enablers.

So what do you think of Western supporters of Hamas who not only ignore/deny Hamas' hateful incitement to murder, but also support Hamas' right to actually act on that incitement and murder Jews?

Do you think that's no big deal and that the Judaization of Jerusalem is far worse?

[Ken Burch]

98. Actually, I do assume that.

Hamas has shown a truly stunning disinterest in "optics" and public relations. Their methods have been crude and almost willfully insensitive. So yes, I think that even if all the groups you mentioned spent 24 hours a day denouncing Hamas, Hamas wouldn't give a tinkers' damn. From what I see, they truly don't care what their methods look like OR what the world thinks of them. It's more likely that they care mainly about not looking "weak" or "soft", for fear that

Also, I strongly suspect that you'd hear more denounciations of Hamas from antizionists or at least non-zionists if those in your camp didn't keep playing the "you HAVE to denounce them every time we say you have to denounce them or you guys are antisemites" card. At least that's what my conjecture is from outside those groups.

The way to reach nonzionists, I would argue, is to show that they're wrong about:

A)what looks like the total intransigence of the Israeli government
B)the complete unwillingness of most "pro-Israel" people to call the Israeli government out publicly about the horrible, arrogant choices it keeps making.

This is why I've called on you and others like you to join in demanding that the Occupation be ended, or at least made significantly less repressive and, at a BARE minimum, to call on the Israeli government to impose a permanent moratorium on settlement expansion.

Even if you defend the settlements, shira, wouldn't you HAVE to agree that there's no possible justification for making any of them any larger? And wouldn't you have to agree that the Israeli government has no right to expect the Palestinian side to resume talks WHILE the settlements keep expanding? What's so freaking important about keeping the settlements expanding that could possibly be worth making it MORE difficult to end the war? How can settlement expansion possibly be worth the knowledge that Israeli children may end up wearing uniforms and carrying guns unto their tenth generation? Think about that before you answer...because it's a serious question and I don't think you HAVE thought about it much.

The way to weaken Hamas is to show the Palestinian people that other methods have a greater chance of getting them what they want. Nothing the Israeli government has done since Bibi came in has given them any reason to believe that.

And historically, the Arab population of Palestine weren't atavistically vicious towards Jews. There were tens of thousands of Jews living in the area prior to 1948 and, in many many cases, the two groups co-existed as well as anybody does. The history simply doesn't bear out the claim that Palestinians and all other Arabs were olive-skinned Nazis "from time immemorial". It just wasn't that simple.

As to the deportation of the indigenous West Bank Jewish population after 1948...I think that was largely the work of the Hashemites(the Jordanian government). The approach the Palestinians themselves had taken, individually, was never quite THAT heavy-handed. My theory is that the post-Abdullah Jordanian monarchs(remember, they have always been a minority community in the country they rule)came to the conclusion that preserving their own grip on power hinged on making sure that relations between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs were as hostile as possible...and that each of those groups should be continually played against each other in order to preserve Hashemite supremacy. This, to my mind, explains why Jordan, in the years when it occupied the West Bank, treated the Jewish population AND the Palestinian population as shabbily as possible, and did all it could to keep those two populations at each other's throats.

Your whole analysis of this conflict, shira, shows you've spent far too much time listening to Revisionist crazies like Bibi's dad Benzion...people who insisted on reducing the whole conflict to European-style antisemitism and who acted as if the Arabs were simply the successors in infamy to the Caesars, the Inquisition, the Tsars and Schickelgruber & Co. It was never that simple, the hopes for any sort of peace at any level hinge on trying to recover the pre-1948 history of Arab relations towards Jews(relations that were ambiguous at times surprisingly positive, and were generally far less brutal than the relations between Jews and European Christians). That history is still in a lot of Arab minds...and I think it can be invoked to create something more positive. But that DEPENDS on the oppression of the Palestinians being brought to an end.

[shira]

99. They can be shamed.

1. Why do you keep insisting Hamas' murderous hate of Jews is based on the Israeli Government's actions? They've said 1000's of times they will never live with Israel in peace. They're religious fanatics of the worst kind. This is a religious war to them. Nothing Israel does matters. It certainly didn't matter in the 90's when the Palestinians were as close as they could get to having their own state, free of occupation and settlements. But how did Arafat respond? Intifada 2. Arafat's antisemitic, neo-nazi western enablers blame Israel instead. Riddle me that one, please...

2. If this isn't about European style, 1940's antisemitism, then kindly explain why so many antizionist westerners ignore and deny Hamas' explicit calls to kill Jews? Why are they supporting the cause of Hamas? Why do they say Hamas' rockets and suicide bombers counts as legitimate resistance? If they're not toting the Hamas line in their fanatical hatred of Jews, then explain just what the hell it is they're doing.

[Ken Burch]

100. The Palestinian people aren't responsible for the Hamas leadership...yet they're punished for it.

The Palestinian people shouldn't have to suffer for what Hamas does.

And no, I don't think Hamas itself can be shamed. They can only be made irrelevant, and the way to do that is to give rank-and-file Palestinians some reason to believe, some REAL reason to believe, that they have something to gain by actively supporting a real alternative to Hamas.

If they aren't made irrelevant, they need to be negotiated with, because it's impossible to end this war with a World War II-style "unconditional surrender" result. If they aren't negotiated with, they'll just sabotage any agreement negotiated with anyone else by the usual ugly brute force methods. And nobody will ever be able to stop them doing that.

We already know that collective punishment of the people of Gaza and the West Bank can never achieve the objective of coercing the Palestinian people into defying their existing leaders. So it's time to switch from the stick to the carrot.

Or at least let them have solar panels.

[shira]

101. Are we having the same conversation? You didn't respond to anything...

...in that last post to me.

Care to try again?

[Ken Burch]

102. You can't reduce the whole thing to Hamas' feelings about Jews.

Hamas' leaders say those things and shouldn't...but that isn't why Palestinians as a group have rebelled. They rebelled because they were and are in an unjust situation. It was never the case that Palestinians(who existed long before Hamas did)only resist the Occupation because Israel purports to be Jewish. They resist because the status quo is intolerable.
Hamas grew because it looked like Palestinians weren't gaining anything anything from trying negotiations and diplomacy.
Why is it that you have so much trouble accepting that.

And obsessing about what Hamas says is besides the point...It doesn't lead to Hamas either being made to behave better OR being sidelined-and we already know that the status quo tactics the Israeli government uses can never be effective in making Hamas stop saying what it says and doing what it does.

The way to deal with Hamas is to give the Palestinian people themselves real reasons to think they have something real to gain, AT THE START, from trying something else...not demanding that they get rid of Hamas and then, after satisfying some other requirements that Bibi will put in place afterwords, maybe giving them a FEW crumbs on sufferance.

The best way to defend Israel is to admit that the Palestinian resistance(whatever you can say about the tactics)IS based on legitimate grievances about how the Israeli government treats them...and that the settlements ARE a legitimate grievance. Pretending that none of that matters and that this is just about bigotry is Reality Denial. And that kind of denial does Israel no good at all.

[shira]

103. When you want to answer me from 2 posts back, let me know. n/t

[Ken Burch]

106. That last post WAS an answer.

It's just that the question isn't as simple as you think.

Both sides are equally to blame, and at some point you'll have to accept that.

[shira]

109. No, you threw a red herring at those questions and avoided answering

Here they are again.

1. Why do you keep insisting Hamas' murderous hate of Jews is based on the Israeli Government's actions? They've said 1000's of times they will never live with Israel in peace. They're religious fanatics of the worst kind. This is a religious war to them. Nothing Israel does matters. It certainly didn't matter in the 90's when the Palestinians were as close as they could get to having their own state, free of occupation and settlements. But how did Arafat respond? Intifada 2. Arafat's antisemitic, neo-nazi western enablers blame Israel instead. Riddle me that one, please...

2. If this isn't about European style, 1940's antisemitism, then kindly explain why so many antizionist westerners ignore and deny Hamas' explicit calls to kill Jews? Why are they supporting the cause of Hamas? Why do they say Hamas' rockets and suicide bombers counts as legitimate resistance? If they're not toting the Hamas line in their fanatical hatred of Jews, then explain just what the hell it is they're doing.

I understand these questions make you uncomfortable and that's why you're being evasive.

But at the very least, these points/questions MUST at some point start to factor into your thinking on I/P. You simply cannot go on with your rants, ignoring all the above, and expect to be taken seriously.

How can we move on with a serious debate if you're unwilling to discuss the reality of the situation?

[Ken Burch]

113. The fatal flaw in your argument remains in place

This conflict isn't about any feelings Hamas has about Jews. And it's never been true that Palestinians would be perfectly happy with the conditions they live under if only somebody else was imposing them.

It's about how Palestinians have been treated by the Occupation. And it IS about the settlements. Anybody would rebel if they saw their homeland being stolen, piece by piece, with the real possibility that after the occupier builds all the settlements it wants, they'll be nothing left OF their homeland. Nobody is going to say "the settlements would be fine-if only they were filled with Turks or Hashemites or Syrians taking our land".

If the Israeli government had ended the Occupation, say, at the time of Camp David(a time at which there was clearly no more need for it)there would be no Hamas in existence now. Fatah would have had an incentive to actually work to create a functioning Palestinian state, and would have had the political strength to do so. And believe it or not, Palestinians want a normal, nonviolent life as much as anybody else does. They aren't pathological...they don't all wake up every morning saying "let's find ways to make every Israeli Jew, even the innocent ones, miserable". And most of them haven't ever harmed anybody.

Hamas is a product, a horrible product, of the perpetuation of the status quo. No forty-four-years-and-counting Occupation, no settlements(ALL of which were always illegal), no Hamas.

At some point you have GOT to accept that Palestinians, whatever you think of Hamas(and I dislike them as much as you do)have legitimate grievances about what the Israelis have done to them...and that the vast majority of Palestinians have done nothing whatsoever to deserve that treatment. Acting as if they are ALL responsible for what Hamas doess and reducing the serious issue of historic antisemitism to an endless scream of "don't hate us...WE are the victims here!" is pointless and it's the way NOT to solve this.

Obsessing about Hamas' rhetoric is pointless. The way to end the conflict is to let ordinary Palestinians have hope. For a start, stop tearing down the solar panels foreign NGO's build for them and stop expanding the settlements, once and for all. Those two steps would do more to combat Hamas(a group that can only grow in a climate of hopelessness)than any of your demands for denunciation.

And I don't actually know for sure that none of the groups you mention denounce what Hamas says. Unlike you, I don't obsess on antizionists don't spend all of my time scouring the 'net for the worst quotes the most screaming right-wing loonies post about them.

[shira]

114. "This conflict isn't about any feelings Hamas has about Jews"...

So you don't believe them when they say it is, in all those nasty PMW videos? You think they're lying? Hamas says the hated Jews are not only occupying and settling the W.Bank, but also Haifa and Tel Aviv.

It's about how Palestinians have been treated by the Occupation. And it IS about the settlements.

So explain what the conflict was all about prior to 1967. Why the terror back then? Why the Hebron massacre in the 1920's? What occupation and settlements were the Palestinians resisting?

If the Israeli government had ended the Occupation, say, at the time of Camp David(a time at which there was clearly no more need for it)there would be no Hamas in existence now.

Hamas ratcheted up the terror attacks in the years and months leading to Camp David. As peace got closer, terror spiked. There goes your thesis. Best of all, Arafat and the PA chose Intifada II rather than make even a counter-proposal to Camp David.

So if it's about the occupation and settlements, then why was there a spike in terror from the Palestinians when a peaceful settlement was within reach?

Obsessing about Hamas' rhetoric is pointless.

Pointless? They're poisoning the next generation of Palestinians. Israelis can see this on their TV's just about any day, and you think that makes them rest easily and prompts them to want to get out of the W.Bank as Israel did with Gaza? So all Israel can become like Sderot?

Pointless? You have to be kidding. Those you're defending, if they really want peace, have to start at some point condemning that shit. As it is, they support what Hamas wants to do WRT Israel and its Jews.

As to obsessing, it appears you and those you're defending are doing the complete opposite. In no way can you all be bothered by what Hamas says and does. How do you explain that?

And I don't actually know for sure that none of the groups you mention denounce what Hamas says.

Then why defend them, as though they're all beacons of Progressivism? How can you not know, or not care to know what these groups are really all about?

[Ken Burch]

121. I believe Hamas may say those things, but the conflict, as you just pointed out in that post.

long predates Hamas...

At the root of the conflict is two peoples with a national sensibility and with an equal sense of connection to the lands in question being unable to accept the other's right to share said land. The specific religions and ethnicities are beside the point. This was the same situation you saw in Northern Ireland, in the Azerbaijan/Armenia dispute, in the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan...it's about two groups struggling over what each sees as a homeland.

Hamas emerged as a political player only very, very late in this situation. They took advantage of the inability on Fatah's part to get a Palestinian state as any other group of opportunists would take advantage of the equivalent or similar situations.

The Hebron conflict was about two peoples battling over control of the same city. The resistance Palestinians had between 1948 and 1967 was about the displacement of hundreds of thousands of other Palestinians(something anyone in their situation would regard as an intolerable injustice)and also about the fact that the Hashemites seized control of the West Bank(including East Jerusalem)and treated Palestinians there quite badly(this, to my mind, explains why the PLO was founded in 1964, when the West Bank was still under Jordanian occupation. They were upset about their countrymen being driven out of their homes by the Israelis AND they were equally upset about having to live at the mercy of the Royal Jordanian Army.)

The conflict also sprang from bullheadedness on the parts of some of the Palestinians, and from the desires of opportunistic politicians in other Arab countries to use the emergence of Zionism as a springboard to their own political advancement.

There has been antisemitism among Palestinians and other Arabs, and it should never have happened(as there has been plenty of anti-Arab racism among Israeli Jews and this is to be equally condemned). But to put the whole thing down to Arab/Palestinian antisemitism, as if nothing else mattered and as if the Palestinians had no major legitimate grievances towards the Israeli government at all, is simply to give aid and comfort to the most retrograde, aggressive, arrogant and anti-peace elements in Israeli politics...and what possible good comes from doing that?

[azurnoir]

76. +1 you are so right n/t

[sabbat hunter]

6. Israel really needs

to find a way to move towards parties needing more votes to enter Knesset. This fragmented Knesset that they keep having will only lead to more and more problems as the leading coalition party will have to make deals with small splinter parties to get a majority.

[oberliner]

8. Agreed

If they went solely on popular vote, Livni would have won.

[shaayecanaan]

41. No, she would not...

Israel's electoral system, along with the Netherlands, is the most proportionally representative in the world. If anything, the outcome of Israeli elections tends to reflect the popular vote much more so than elections in the US or UK for example.

[oberliner]

42. Yes, she would

In terms of popular vote, Kadima/Livni was the winner.

Here is the final vote tally:

Kadima 758,032
Likud 729,054
Yisrael Beiteinu 394,577
Labor Party 334,900

Livni's party, Kadima, won the most popular votes and won the most seats.

[shaayecanaan]

44. And what about the 80% of Israelis who didnt vote for Kadima?

Whether you have a proportional system, a first past the post system or an alternative vote system, Kadima was not going to win the elections with 22% of the vote.

[oberliner]

48. She got the most votes

She had more votes than Netanyahu, but Netanyahu ended up PM. If you went by a plurality of the popular vote, she got the most votes. That was all I was saying.

[eyl]

47. On the other hand

the last decade and a half has seen increasing fragmentation in the Knesset. Up to 1992, it used to be standard for at least one party to get over 40 seats; ever since then, the largest party is usually around 30 or so (2003 was an exception, with Likud gainig 38 seats). This increases the influence of the smaller parties, which also tend to be more extreme on average.

[LeftishBrit]

36. +1000!

[bemildred]

9. I thought Peres chose him last time.

The Knesset is chosen, Pres. chooses somebody to form a government, and if they succeed, that's the PM. Livni actually had more MK, but she never got a chance to try to form a government.

I wonder if Peres would still make that choice if he could go back.

[eyl]

13. Livni probably couldn't have gotten enough parties

to form a coalition (the idea is that the president selects the person who has the best chance of forming a government), so we'd likely had the same result except Bibi's goverment would be formed a couple of months or so later.

[bemildred]

14. That is merely an after-the-fact justification for not giving her a chance.

If you really want to give her a chance, then you give her a chance.

[oberliner]

15. I was very disheartened by how that all turned out

It was a pleasant surprise (to me) that Livni's party ended up with the most seats and a real disappointment that Netanyahu became PM anyway.

[bemildred]

16. Yep. nt

[eyl]

19. no, it's the way our system works

The president gives the first shot to the prrson he believes has the best chance of forming a government, not the person he likes better or even who he thinks would make a better PM, and he's supposed to be apolitical in his duties. Frankly, given the way the Knesset map ended up, Peres could have been accused (with cause) of political bias if he had selected Livni.

[bemildred]

20. Are you denying he had the choice?

I'm not accusing Peres of being insincere, I'm asking whether he would make the same choice if he could do it over.

Edit: furthermore, I have not observed that political bias is considered a bad thing in Israeli politics, it's how things are done, and anybody can accuse you of it at any time for nothing.

[oberliner]

22. I believe he tried to convince them to form a unity government

Once those efforts were unsuccessful, I don't think he had a choice but to ask Netanyahu to form a government based on the number of seats won by parties on his side of the aisle.

[bemildred]

23. I think we should leave this.

It's not going to be useful or entertaining either one. So let's just leave it. You want to defend him, I don't really want to attack him, and we have moved somewhat far afield.

[eyl]

25. Since you asked to drop it

I won't comment on Peres.

I will say, though, that in the specific case of the President, because of his role, it is important that he remain apolitical. If it's believe that the President is selecting the potential PM based on his partisan politics, it could undermine the entire system.

[bemildred]

30. OK. nt

[LeftishBrit]

18. Ugh; hope not.

[leveymg]

26. Netanyahu's Likud party only has 27 out of 120 seats? May gain 2. That spells an easy win?

Must be the same polling outfits that show RMoney ahead and keeping that lead.

[oberliner]

27. Yes I don't agree at all

I think the election could hold many surprises.

[leveymg]

29. Just as a practical matter, when Obama is reelected, Bibi has burned his bridges and poisoned the

waters between Israel and the White House. I just can't see how he can continue to be a politically viable leader of Israel, and I suspect that many in the Knesset also clearly recognize that.

[Ken Burch]

53. If Labor and Lapid's party could form an alliance, that would change the whole dynamic

Particularly if the remnant of Kadima goes in with an alliance like that as well-perhaps some sort of a temporary joint slate.

The best thing I've seen, from the early polls, is that it looks like Ehud Barak's splinter party may not win a single mandate(seat)-and it's hard to actually fall THAT far in an Israeli election.

[oberliner]

55. What polls?

Link please.

[Ken Burch]

56. Here you are(the polls are about halfway down in the article)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2013

[oberliner]

58. Check this out

'Post' poll: 'Center-Left mega-party' would beat PM

Party led by Olmert, including Livni and Lapid would win 31 seats, four more than Likud, in 2013 election, poll reveals.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=287497

[Ken Burch]

60. My point, more or less(although a Lapid/Labor thing would be better than Lapid/Kadima).

Last edited Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Call it something new if Lapid can't bring himself to formally join Labor(I believe the "One Israel" label was used in the election where Rabin ousted Shamir).

(on edit)that article seemed to be more about trying to start a boomlet for an Olmert comeback. I can't really understand why anyone on the center-left in Israel, at this point, would prefer Kadima to Labor. It's not as if Kadima had any stellar achievements in office-and Kadima is STILL committed to the neoliberal, austerity economics that Bibi champions-the economics Israelis were out in the streets in the hundreds of thousands protesting. Wouldn't a switch from Likud to Kadima be fairly pointless? And seriously, after twelve years, what does anybody on the center-left have to be pissed off with Labor about? It's not as if there was any good alternative to trying to negotiate with Arafat in 2000, after all. There was no chance that refusing to do so would ever create a better Palestinian leadership, and what's happened since then has proven that focusing on trying to destroy Fatah had no positive consequences at all in that period. It's not as if doing that led to Hanan Ashrawi becoming president of the PA.

[azurnoir]

28. what will determine the outcome in the end is the size of whatever coalition(s) that can be formed

while in the last election Likud actually had one less seat than Kadima the fact that Likud was able to draw in the smaller rightwing and or religious parties and there by form a larger coalition than Kadima was in part what led to them being in power

[eyl]

31. the polls predict

Only 20 seats for Labor, which would be the next largest party, and in general predict more seats for right-wing parties than for the left, which means Netanyahu would have the better chance of forming a coalition.

[leveymg]

32. "The polls predict"

That's exactly the point. And, I'm aware of how Parliamentary pluralities work in fractionated legislatures.

[Ken Burch]

52. I truly hope ALL the "pro-Israel" posters here will do the right thing and call for Likud's defeat

Every moment Netanyahu stays in power kills the hopes for peace even more.

Israel deserves better than to have this coalition of arrogant zealots leading it.

There's no possible valid reason for keeping the current band of crazies in power. All of them are committed to making peace impossible.

[oberliner]

54. What does that mean?

Regime change?

[Ken Burch]

57. only in the electoral sense.

I'm not calling for "Operation Fresh Falafel" or anything.

[oberliner]

59. They deserve who they get

And I mean that for all democracies.

That said, I am hopeful that Netanyahu will be defeated at the ballot box.