Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumDismantle Israeli democracy and replace it with Jewish law, says settler leader
Benny Katzover tells Chabad journal: Israeli democracy has finished its role, and it must disassemble and give way to Judaism.Israeli democracy must be dismantled and in its place a halakhic state, based on Jewish law, should be established, says settler leader Benny Katzover in an interview to a a messianic journal of Chabad.
In an interview with Beit Mashiach, the journal of the messianic faction of the Chabad Movement with ties to settlers, Katzover says that "the main role of Israeli democracy now is to disappear. Israeli democracy has finished its role, and it must disassemble and give way to Judaism. All leads toward recognition that there is no other way but to place Judaism at the center, above all else, and this is the answer to every situation."
Earlier in the interview Katzover commented on the campaign against the exclusion of women, saying that his group had information of the pending campaign.
"Our activists are linked to all the networks of the left, and we knew they were planning an incitement campaign. This is just another wave of incitement, targeting the hilltop youth and the Haredi community. The leftist activists prepare well-timed campaigns against anything which smells of holiness, and their aim is twofold: political, to undermine the government and score points among the public, and to strike at all the fundamentals of Jewish faith.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/dismantle-israeli-democracy-and-replace-it-with-jewish-law-says-settler-leader-1.406035
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TigerToMany
(124 posts)The man is just one man out of millions of Israelis. He doesn't represent the views of the Israeli government or even 99.9% of the Israeli politician. The fact is that Israel is home to a lot of secular/non-religious people who still consider themselves to be Jewish for cultural or historical reasons, and they’re not going to go anywhere.
On the other hand the stated goal of Hamas is shariah law.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)the haridi get to have their say.
of course the question that has to be asked, is why is this news here, is it one of those subtle attempts to play the "moral equivalency game".
for the lesser knowledgable one might confuse the governing hamas, the governing PA both of whom base their foundation law on religious law, with the israeli law with is secular at is base.
one might want that to happen as a way of confusing others to believe that israel is also a theocracy....but why would someone want to to do that?...
bemildred
(90,061 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)just like the muslim brotherhood, hamas, christian evangelists, the taliban, etc.
the only thing that keeps all of those groups in place is a strong working democracy, who has a secular base. That is what Israel is, hence its more of an internal matter in that respect.
however, if you want to compare govts and their policies, that is where it gets interesting. As the muslim brotherhood digs in deeper and is now starting to make it clearer what they aims are (i hope you won't be surprised), its all about religious law. Now that will in fact have an effect on the I/P conflict directly.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I realize that is Democracy in action and all that, but it won't save you from the consequences anymore than it does anybody else.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)Because it's important that the secular Israelis defeat these extreme views.
Because it's important that the Religious Right be defeated in America. ALL the current Republican candidates are suspect from this point of view.
Because it's important that Tony Abbott 'The Mad Monk' doesn't get to be Prime Minister of Australia. He missed it last time by ONE parliamentary seat.
Because it's important that the hardline right-wing 'pro-lifers' never EVER again get the chance to determine who is MP for my constituency, while we complacently assume that 'it can't happen here' - until it does.
Because the problem of the religious right and their pernicious influences on politics, society (and on religion if it comes to that) is a big danger everywhere; and it's not equating Israel with Hamas or Ahmadinejad to worry about it.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)to begin with its in the new everyday in israel....as its affects the very core of israel, but it has little to do with the I/P conflict in terms of policy
and the theocracy that they represent and want is very much a copy of hamas, pakistan, Iran, Muslim Brotherhood, they are all carbon copies of each other....their words are all simaler.
your equation of religious fanatics who want a theocracy to republicans is so far off. I know nothing of Austrailia, but a lot about the american republicans, and there is nothing to compare.
the republicans have been in power in the US and uphold the basic blocks of the constitution-see history, as do the ones going for the presidency today. Religious fanatics would remove the basic blocks of that where it says:
"all men are created equal".
find me one republican president/candidate who wants to remove that and you'll have an argument.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)They are not the party of Eisenhower, Nixon, or even Reagan.
And yes, there are quite a number of Republican politicians and even presidential candidates who are very close to the Christian fundamentalist/dominionist theocrats. If you've been out of this country for awhile, you probably don't have a very good idea of just how extreme things have gotten.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and my question still stands...which of the republican candidates has claim they want to remove the "all men are created equal" part of the govt?
furthermore, as an addition to knowing what fundamentalists really look like and know how they pose a real danger to a democratic society, i would say the republicans aren't even close.
can you name a single city, town, county in the united states who's by laws are fundamentalist....a single one?...even a tiny one?
if you can't even do that, then i would say you have overblown the danger of any fundamentalist taking over anything in the US......they start with small towns, villages, neighborhoods....
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)not ours. And no, they haven't made any of the specific statements that you've asked, and I wouldn't expect them to, and I find that fact to be highly irrelevant to the concerns that I've outlined.
Politics works differently in this country than it does in yours, and the theocratic threat manifests itself in very different ways, not surprisingly.
I've never noticed you posting in any of the areas of DU that involve politics in the U.S., but if you should try venturing out there, I think you will find that my views on the fundamentalist Christian threat, and their specific ties to the Republican party are far from unusual here.
You probably won't find the things that you claim would serve as valid evidence for this threat though. A very different political system and a very different political and religious culture than those that exist in your country. These things manifest themselves very differently here. And you're free to believe me or not, but ask around to other DUers, and I think you'll find that I'm far from the only one here who sees things this way.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)* Repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations, and will direct HHS to restore the separation of Title X family planning from abortion practices and restore a ban on referrals for abortion
* Reinstitute the Mexico City Policy to stop tax-payer funding or promotion of abortion overseas
* Ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
* Restore conscience clause protections for health care workers
* Defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court
* Ban military chaplains from performing same sex marriage ceremonies on military bases or other Federal properties
* Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans
* Re-direct funds within HHS so it can create a public/private partnership with state &local communities, not-for-profit organizations, and faith-based organizations for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood
* Veto any bill or budget that funds abortion or funds any organization that performs abortions including Planned Parenthood
Congressional Directives
* Call on Congress to abolish the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
* Advocate for a Personhood Amendment to the Constitution
* Call on Congress to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
* Advocate for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
* Call on Congress to reinstitute Don't Ask/Don't Tell
* Call on Congress to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act
* Call on Congress to reinstitute 2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education program
* Advocate for a federal law permitting schools to allow prayer at graduations, football games and other school functions
During his time in elected office, Rick Santorum was the national leader for the preservation of the traditional American family and for the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. Rick led the fight to preserve the traditional family and American values:
* Banned Partial-Birth Abortions
* Authored the original Federal Marriage Amendment
* Wrote and passed the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" and the "Unborn Victims of Violence" Act
* Led the fight for longer sentences for child predators
* Named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential evangelical leaders"
---
As a husband and father, Rick Santorum knows the importance of protecting and providing for your family. He believes that at the core of the American experience is the family, and that without strong families, we cannot have a strong and vibrant nation.
During his time in elected office, Rick Santorum fought for the preservation of the traditional American family and for the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. Rick was the author of legislation outlawing the heinous act known as partial-birth abortion and he championed the fight to pass the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” and the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.” He also authored legislation to advance adult stem cell research, so that ethical research could take place to fight debilitating diseases without the moral implications associated with embryonic stem cell research that destroys human life.
Rick Santorum not only believes but cherishes the ideal of a culture of life. As a member of the United States Senate, Rick fought for the passage of the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), and the “Combating Autism Act” to fight this devastating disease that is affecting more and more of our nation’s children.
When activist judges took it upon themselves to redefine marriage, and with it the underpinnings of the traditional American family and our First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion, Rick spearheaded the debate in favor of Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. Rick successfully fought even members of his own Party and had the amendment brought to the Senate floor for public debate in two successive Congresses. Even though he knew he would be labeled a bigot or worse by members of the liberal elite, Rick Santorum understood this issue was far too important to the future of our society not to be debated before the American public.
Rick understands that our freedom to practice our faith is not just under attack through the redefinition of marriage, but in nearly every facet of the popular culture. As a member of the United States Senate, Rick authored the “Workplace Religious Freedom Act” to ensure individuals of all faith could not be discriminated against while on the job. Rick also founded the Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom to ensure that the principle of Freedom of Religion would not be infringed upon.
Since leaving the Senate in 2007, Rick has spent much of his time advancing these same principles in the private and non-profit sector. Rick has helped raise funds to support organizations like the Susan B. Anthony List, Americans United for Life, and the National Organization for Marriage. But of all his jobs, Rick is most proud of his time spent as a husband to his wife Karen and a father to their seven children – including serving as the Little League coach for their two youngest sons.
What does that sound like to you, or do you not understand what he means? No gay marriage, no abortions, etc. It's not sharia, but it's in the neighborhood.
It's true he won't be elected this time around, but there is always next time, and the next ...
Like a lot of the Pubbies this year, he has some "odd" position associations, if you read his campaign babble.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)this whole "republican religious right" is nothing more than the left, being hysterical and making up a boogy man.
___________
this is what religious law looks like
1 one set of people get one set of laws the "chosen group", the others get a secondary set.
2 moral squads patrol neighborhoods beating the crap or killing those who don't follow the line
3 freedom of speech and movement is limited
4 religious leaders having a direct lawful influence on local societies on what is permitted and what is not in every day life.
______
Find me some of those and i'll reduce the "hysterical" to "religion creep"
_________________
the whole abortion issue, may be the litmus test between right and left, but it has little to do with the religious right taking over the US and installing Christian biblical law. You don't have to be religious fanatic to believe abortion is wrong.
the marriage stuff i'll 'give you" as that is definitely based on religion but there is nothing threatening about groups having different beliefs within the framework of a democracy, those beliefs are well within the norms of acceptable differences.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)Or this?
Why don't you check out some of the stuff on this site. http://theocracywatch.org/
As I've said before, theocratic tendencies in this country manifest themselves in very different ways than they do in your country.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 21, 2012, 07:14 PM - Edit history (1)
there was in fact not a whole lot of evidence of the christian right taking over. It read far more like a far left site that is dealing with "hysterics' of the right "taking over". A couple of small examples but nothing that never happened before in the US.
Some of the information about the laws being circumvented during bushes term has their parallels with the obama administration i.e. politics as usual.
A lot of talk of their "plans' of how they are going to about doing it, etc. Nothing that you won't find in a normal vibrant democracy.....sorry, that is pretty standard for any democracy, different groups get to plan and attempt to change the values of the govt.
As i wrote, i'm pretty aware of the the US which is at its core a christian nation, given that i was born and raised in Michigan and have masters from U of M....
when the Christians start having moral squads patrolling the streets at night, threatening singles that are fornicating in sin, local councils, that enact laws that negate the civil rights, then you'll have a case. Abortion may be a "hot" issue' but its a select issue that involves more people pro/con than the religious that want to abort the civil rights, so its not really an indication of the religious right taking over.
right now all your showing is intolerance for those who's values you disgree with...and guess what group has that very same exact value?- intolerance?
thats right, those very christians...
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)nt
pelsar
(12,283 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)never mind that the settlers have been stirring up a bit of trouble lately it's under control nothing to see here move along now
bemildred
(90,061 posts)But it sure sounds the same to me.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)if you compare "apples to apples' you don't get a chance to demonize israel, and that would be a problem.
___
The article was nothing about the settlers and their violence, which clearly you would like to bring up. It was about their dream of a theocracy, which given israelis secular foundation, is not likely to happen.
given your apparent support for govts that are based on religious law (PA/Hamas) i can see where this might be disturbing
bemildred
(90,061 posts)comparisons here. I don't see why I should get worked up about various fundies all over the world, but this one case here, I should ignore. I realize these clowns are embarrassing, I live in the USA, I'm embarrassed right now about what our political process has degenerated into. But that won't save my ass when they take over. Frankly, I think that's even more likely for you guys than for us, and I think all options are on the table here.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and i agree that we have more of a chance of it happening over here than in the US...our political system, based on a nice theory, is crap. And if one really wants to have a serious discussion about it, i would be happy to give forth my opinion of it..
perhaps it was just a "forum reflex" on my part.....
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)your needs here, but settler violence has been in the news lately internationally and in Israel sorry if this article bothers you which it has become quite apparent that it does, yet nothing in the article says this is a majority in Israel does it, in fact the article was published by an Israeli newspaper, perhaps Ha'aretz should keep Israel's 'dirty laundry' more quiet huh?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)aren't you for Self Palestinians govt as first priority no matter what kind of govt they have? even if that means a theocratic govt that hamas has in gaza?
i would define that as supporting hamas
_____
israel has tons of dirty laundry and the fact that its public is what democracies are all about, given your history here of attempting to demonize israel through partial information i just assumed this is per your tradition/custom.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)One can support Israeli self-government without supporting Likud.
One can support American self-government without supporting the Republicans.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)supporting the creation of a Palestinian state knowing full well that its political parties, the main ones are both anti democratic, creates a dilemma...
How do you support Palestenians independence now, knowing full well that its result will be anti democratic? a dictatorship at best and at worst a theocratic dictatorship?
..As i see it, and my concern is in relationship to israel, supporting independence of a such a state now, knowing full well the real options, is in fact supporting the govt that will be in power....in the case of gaza, its hamas.
btw
im all for a Palesteniains state, but on the condition that it has democratic values at its base...neither the PA nor hamas have such basic values and in my opinion have no right to create a state...
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Just curious, but do you understand the definition of the words 'dictatorship' and 'democratic'?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)supporting the creation of any society that does not have fundamental civil rights for women, for minorities as its base foundation, is supporting the creation of a non democratic society which has no right to exist.
its that simple Furthermore if you want to get specific both hamas and the PA have declared that shari law, in word and deed is the base for their laws and have rejected western democracy...the concept that religious book which by their very nature are biased and prejudiced is the base for the laws of a society totally negates their right to state at this time.
Supporting the creation of a state for nationalistic reasons knowing full well what kind of govt it will be, is supporting that govt.
You don't get it both ways...support democracy and support the creation of an anti democratic govt
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I'd like to know how you define those terms, and also I'd like you to explain what you think 'fundamental civil rights for women' involve and what of them women in the West Bank don't have...
I strongly support the creation of a Palestinian state, and that does NOT mean I support Hamas. That's as ridiculous as someone saying you support Likud because you support the right of Israel to exist...
forgot to add that does yr hatred of religious law entering into the public realm of a state extend to Israel, where family law is in the hands of the religious?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)yep
i actually don't hate religion, i actually respect its existence, as it appears to be necessary, it just has no place in interfering in the basic civil rights of the individual.
you can support a Palestinian state as much as you want, what kind of State it will become is the question.... having a state in itself for a specific group (nationalism) is not always justified.
If one believes, as i do that new states must all be western democratic (new version of the white mans burden), then those states must first have the proper infrastructure, culture and education to create and sustain such a society. Not having such a infrastruture is an open invitation to a dictatorship, which as we have seen, do not give up power very easily, and are not conducive to peace nor to the civil rights of its citizens.
supporting israel but not likud
Once a democracy exists, and has proven it can sustain itself, as the power of leadership changes hands peacefully, supporting such as state has nothing to do with an one party. Hence likud is not israel, whereas hamas rules gaza and the PA is in fact the rulers of the west bank. There are no other present options, which is why supporting a Palestinians state now is in fact supporting those two parties.
___
you ask how i define democracy.....its not so much the fine details of any constitution, as it is the basic foundation and infrastructure:
civil laws are the basic building blocks, with freedom of speech, movement, the right to protest. Education that teaches those very laws, multiple parties and their members get elected, tossed out and re-elected and tossed out again by the electorate.
i.e. a society where the people can continually and securly express their viewpoints and see changes from those expressions in govt policies.
dictatorships don't have those very basic aspects
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)From what I could make out of yr definition of democracy, it's not a correct one. Democracy is simply rule by the people. The very first instance of democracy was one where women, slaves and basically anyone but adult males didn't have a say, but it was still a form of democracy. Likewise, prior to women having the vote here (and we had the vote before everywhere else in the world except for New Zealand), my country was still a democracy. In the 20 and 21st century, a democracy is a state that allows all its citizens to rule by electing representatives. Democracy has nothing to do with freedom of speech and the right to protest. Using that as a marker, many countries like Australia wouldn't be seen by you as democracies, as our freedom of speech is only implied and has limits, and from seeing more than a few protests shut down by police, including one against Max Brenner, there's no universal right to protest...
I'd still be interested in seeing how you define dictatorship, btw...
You claimed the PA ruled the West Bank because there's no alternative. The PA is the governing authority of the Palestinians, just like the Australian govt is here or the Israeli govt is there. Currently Fatah is the dominant party that makes up the PA, but it's incorrect to claim there's only one party, when the Palestinians have more political parties than we have here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority
If one believes, as i do that new states must all be western democratic (new version of the white mans burden), then those states must first have the proper infrastructure, culture and education to create and sustain such a society.
That would mean you would have opposed independence for East Timor, and would now totally oppose independence for West Papua (a situation that's very similar to Palestine, as it's got an occupying power using its own citizens to settle the occupied territory and change the demographics in that territory). Or is it just that there's a different standard applied when it comes to Palestine?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)in my opinion, no federal govt has the right to exist that is not western democratic....no exceptions allowed, no matter what the history or genes or the color of their skin.
From what I could make out of yr definition of democracy, it's not a correct one. Democracy is simply rule by the people.
"rule by the people" is a vague concept, i.e the USSR was "ruled by the people" My concern is with realities, how a people and their rights/freedom within their society, and most important, to change the leadership with regularly scheduled election to toss out the "bastards."
a western democracy that doesn't allow women to vote today, clearly cannot have the definition of a western democracy. Freedom to protest and speak is not absolute, there will always be some limits, but the lack of fear to protest or speak out is the essential ingredient. I assume in austrialia protestors don't fear for their lives if they protest or write nasty comments in newspapers, print flyers, scream out on street corners...don't try to compare a protest in austrialia with one in gaza or one in the west bank, it doesn't work.
as far as the PA and fatah goes...again, definitions on paper don't interest me, since they tend to clouds ones view of reality. The obvious examples of how hamas won in gaza and how the MB is now taking control over egypt. In both cases the arguments about "moderation" and other fine words were nothing more than words on paper with lengthy explanations and excuses. The reality was obvious and the effects on the ground are equally obvious.
When the PA has a real election and a second non facist party gets some serious votes you'll have an argument that the PA is not Fatah....but that will take some time, western education and tolerance from Fatah, none of which are "sure" things.
____
your missing the essential ingredient....theories are nice, but my reality is rather harsh, with definitive and quantifiable results from failed policies, hence theories that are not based in reality have little weight. Furthermore democracies have the right to use illiberal methods to protect themselves, i.e. education for example teaches western democracy values as good and theocratic values as bad.
the "people" have rights as long as those rights are used to sustain a democracy, when they are used, manipulated to destroy a democracy, those "people" have lost the rights to participate. that would be the definition of a dictatorship-anything that is not a western democracy.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Holy crap!
in my opinion, no federal govt has the right to exist that is not western democratic....no exceptions allowed, no matter what the history or genes or the color of their skin.
What's a 'western democratic' govt? Are you referring to what's known as liberal democracy, which for the Western-centric amongst us, isn't confined to the Western world? And there's no one single form of liberal democracy. The US and Australia have different forms, and when it comes to Israel, that bit of compromise by Ben-Gurion that gave control over family matters such as divorce etc to the religious folk makes it one weird sort of liberal democracy...
I assume in austrialia protestors don't fear for their lives if they protest or write nasty comments in newspapers, print flyers, scream out on street corners...don't try to compare a protest in austrialia with one in gaza or one in the west bank, it doesn't work.
I believe the discussion was about supposed freedom to protest, but you've now turned it into something else. So back to what was being discussed, there's no freedom to protest here. The police can and have broken up protests, people aren't allowed to protest for all sorts of reasons, etc...
as far as the PA and fatah goes...again, definitions on paper don't interest me, since they tend to clouds ones view of reality.
Actual definitions of words like 'fascist', 'dictatorship' etc do tend to get in the way when there's a good bout of demonisation happening. My rule of thumb is if someone can't be bothered to use a term like that correctly, then they shouldn't be using it at all...
the "people" have rights as long as those rights are used to sustain a democracy, when they are used, manipulated to destroy a democracy, those "people" have lost the rights to participate. that would be the definition of a dictatorship-anything that is not a western democracy.
If you advocate people losing their right to participate in a democracy, then aren't you actually advocating states that aren't democratic in nature at all?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:06 PM - Edit history (3)
its very simple...western democracies have a few basic principles...the most crucial is electoral cycles where the govt reps can be removed peacefully. To do that, a society also requires freedom of speech, freedom to demonstrate...basic western civil rights. After those they can do what they want as per their own cultures. Nationalism does not triumph basic citizen rights.
as far as i can tell...you seem to be big on the various NGOs, HR, Amnesty etc...all of which base their reports on western values of civil rights. Which means you obviously believe that all countries should adhere to the basic set of western values.
so why create a country that doesn't have those rights in the first place and then "complain" when they don't have them? The pressure to change after independence will be much less than before (if not ignored entirely by most non democratic countries)
Democracies are not perfect, take time to build....but there is no excuse for advocating the creation of a non democratic state...as far as i am concerned thats another version of an occupation, the only difference being the genes of the occupier. (something noticed by some gazans living under hamas, some have noticed that having the same genes as the occupier does little and in fact can be a lot crueler).
If you advocate people losing their right to participate in a democracy, then aren't you actually advocating states that aren't democratic in nature at all?
there are no absolutes, and liberal democracies will have to use illiberal means to defend themselves, this is nothing new and is the standard, hence israel outlawed the kach party,
Citizens/representatives of a country do not have the right to destroy their democracy, the generations that come after have the right to live in an imperfect western democracy (hence what hitler did, what chavas has done, what kach planned all have to be prevented by illiberal methods).
___
going with the assumption that you believe that all people should live with the basic freedoms that liberal democracies have, (as per you use of HRW, Amnesty, etc). How do you justify supporting the creation of non liberal democratic states?
(where there is no election cycle, no realistic multiple parties, where religious law supersedes civil law?, where basic freedoms don't exist in the street)
shira
(30,109 posts)...that doesn't mean we support the elected government in power right now.
We support both for being real democracies. Sure, they're both imperfect but it's pretty much the best system. Other democracies may work better or be more liberal, but the USA and Israel can definitely work to become as good as other countries on certain issues, laws, or policies.
OTOH, there's Hamastan. The anti-Israel crowd supports an Hamastan that has practically zero chance of allowing any kind of 'self-determination' to its people. Hamastan couldn't give a rip about seculars, liberals, gays, women, non-Muslims, Christians, etc. and that government will do all it can to keep suppressing those groups of people. But this is what our Leftist friends here enthusiastically support. You'll notice they have VERY little to criticize when it comes to Hamastan, just a little lip service when pressed. Unlike liberal supporters of the USA or Israel, who will at least agree or admit to imperfections, bad policies, wrongdoings, etc., our Leftist friends here do all they can to deny, ignore, or explain away the worst in Hamastan. I'd call that support, wouldn't you?
At least they're somewhat consistent. They also support Egyptian enslavement under MB rule and prefer a dictatorship far more hostile to liberal and secular interests worldwide. The Far Left supports the very extreme and totalitarian Far Right. If it's not support, it goes further than just mere tolerance, doesn't it? They're apologists for the extreme third world Far Right. Maybe they don't believe third world rightwing brown people count as Rightwingers (Israelis aren't brown people even if they look like Palestinians). But it seems the Left supports extremely rightwing third worlders, liberal values there be damned.
I'm more than open to being corrected.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I do not understand people who think that the object of policy decisions is to disagree with people you hate, not to do what is best for everybody, near as one can figure that out. If Al Qaeda is right about something, I'm not going to do the wrong thing just so nobody can say I agree with Al Qaeda.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)which was made shortly prior to this one on this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=2922
but apparently it must once again be pointed out that a party taking over via a coup is not self determination but rather dictatorship
pelsar
(12,283 posts)and i suspect (feel free to correct me) that when it comes to the west bank, it not a major concern to you (hamas takeover) and in fact, from your point of view, it shouldn't be considered relevant, given your preference for immediate israeli withdrawal...
but correct me if i am wrong...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but immediate, is impossible it will take a bit of time not years mind you but months first and foremost will be removing the settlers something that as an Israeli I would think that would concern you more as that will threaten a civil war of sorts now OTOH not all by far of the settlers are 'crazies' so I believe some especially the 'need a cheap mortgage-niks' will stay as Palestinian citizens that option has been offered, it's the "G-d said it's ours" or something sorts that will be a problem, other than that the PA security has been very good at keeping things under control you have admitted that yourself. Why would that change, even if Hamas were to become a PA member they would have to change too you know that also. The PA's power base is and has always been in the West Bank as Hamas's has been in Gaza and IMO you also know that, so no I do not see much of a problem there either. It's getting over the 'hump' and that's removing the more 'militant' settler's that is IMO the biggest threat to both Israel and a newly minted Palestine.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)why do you think that most israelis, who mind you, don't give a shit about the settlements and see the "hill top youth' (the fantaics who are attacking both the palestenians and the IDF) as a danger to israel, say no to a pullout?
The PA is doing a fine job keeping hamas down, mainly because the IDF is doing all of the heavy lifting.
but i don't belittle hamas and their beliefs...what is it with that view point that
even if Hamas were to become a PA member they would have to change too you know that also.
would you change your beliefs just so can get some power? would you start supporting the settlers if i gave you enough money and power? Hamas is a party based on their religious beliefs, their not giving them up...wasn't that the mantra when they took control of gaza? that they would be moderated?....that sure didn't happened (just as the saudis and iranians didn't "moderate"
The bottom line is quite simple: the PA is a corrupt dictatorship, the only alternative, thanks to the Palestinians education system, provided by the UN and friends, is Hamas. Neither are stable, neither represent anything near a western democracy which is the only real chance for long term peace and both represent govts that will be repressive and with a limited life span.
and thats why there is no israeli political will to remove them....with hizballa up north, hamas down south, we're not to interested in a third front that is within mortar range of a big city.
but i went off track....how does one who claim they are supporters of western democratic values promote the creation of a non democratic society, with all of its anti western values?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)puleez let's start with where would the Hilltop youth ect go, back to Israel most likely reason enough right there to not want to remove these settlers as to Hamas you ignore the fact that it is the PA who has kept them under control and as proof it was Israel who insisted the US release money earmarked for that purpose as to Hexbollah they are in Lebanon they have not attacked Israel since 2006 and quite frankly have their hands full there, not to mention there has been little between Hezbollah and the PA
and now the 'kicker'
"but i went off track....how does one who claim they are supporters of western democratic values promote the creation of a non democratic society, with all of its anti western values?"
I always love these self serving mantra and yes I know article 4 of the PA or PLO law however neither has instituted the Fox News version of sharia in the West Bank and is not likely to do so either just as Hezbollah has not done so in Lebanon, why because Palestinians and Lebanese are among the most Westernize Arabs there are and the people themselves would not stand for it. As to Gaza perhaps it is Hamas instituting some of those anti-women anti-liberal aspects of sharia that has led among other things to their fall in popularity
pelsar
(12,283 posts)this is where your shown to be wrong...hence the question is do you accept being wrong or ignore it or make up some excuse?
neither has instituted sharia in the West Bank
example 1: (classic religious law). this is the most glaring example
A Palestinian blogger faces life imprisonment for criticizing Islam on Facebook. The 26-year-old blogger, Waleed al-Husseini, was arrested recently by the Western-backed Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank.
His crime: He created a Facebook account named Allah and "insulted the divine essence."
Palestinians and Lebanese are among the most Westernize Arabs there are and the people themselves would not stand for it
it appears the the Palestinians in gaza are 'standing for it shari law" Whether or not Hamas is popular or not, is hardly the case, they rule, the've got shari law going strong and Fox news has nothing to do with it (why would you blame a news organization for the PA's laws?)
furthermore a simplistic look at history shows just how quickly an "enlightened western society can become "turned", Iran being one very glaring example of that (Germany 1930s-40s for another)
so now what?
we've got the beginnings of implementation of shari law in the west bank, and full blown shari law in gaza....
and from your point of view, its an acceptable alternative correct?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)oh that;s right Waleed al-Husseini which is the pseudonym Walid Husayin writes has not been charged with anything has he? In fact there is not all too much about him recently most article are from the period of November and December of 2010 the PA says they were holding him in protective custody after death threats were made against, Khalid Abu Tomeh cried some salty tears over him but also seemed to drop it oh BTW in the same article abu Tomeh and claimed that the PA would soon be beheading people and cutting off their hands ect but also stated several times that the PA was secular do you want a link be sure to let know okay?
Now as to Gaza I have already covered that in the comment you replied to but thanks to shira's links we have a poll which shows just how low Hamas popularity has sunk would you like to that too?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)he faces a potential life prison sentence on heresy charges
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/palestinian-jailed-for-logging-on-to-facebook-as-god-to-criticize-islam-1.324302
simple fact, the guy was arrested for insulting god.......
how is hamas popularity relevant? there are no elections in a gaza anymore, their little spring revolution was shot down quickly by hamas and shari law is the law there.
and you support the Palestenian self government irreguardless of what kind of version of govt they have, be it facism, theocracy, democracy
am i not correct?....(10:1 odds you won't answer)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it claims that potentially he could be but he has not been charged with anything
Husayin spent several months at the Qalqilyah Internet cafe.[2] The cafe's owner, Ahmed Abu Asab, found his activities suspicious: "Sometimes he was in here until after midnight for over eight hours a day, always sitting in the corner. He was very secretive. He never wanted you to see his screen."[4] Using software to check on what his client was doing, Abu Asab discovered Husayin's sacrilegious Facebook writings. Abu Asab said he and three friends knew of Husayin's actions and that "maybe somebody" informed the authorities.[1]
After Palestinian Authority (PA) intelligence was tipped off, intelligence officials monitored him for several weeks and arrested him on October 31, 2010 as he sat in the cafe.[2] In November 2010, the Ma'an News Agency filed the first report on the arrest of the "controversial blogger whose postings on Facebook had infuriated Muslims."[1][5]
The PA did not give any explanation as to why Husayin has been arrested.[2] According to a Palestinian human rights expert, if Husayin would be tried, it would be according to a 1960 Jordanian law against defaming religion which is still in force in the West Bank.[1] Tayseer Tamimi, the former chief Islamic judge in the area, said that Husayin is the first person to be arrested in the West Bank for their religious views.[2]
In December 2010, a Palestinian security source said Husayin would continue to be kept in jail for his own protection: "It is impossible to release him because we are afraid he will be killed by his family." Human Rights Watch has urged the PA to release or charge him, citing that holding him without charge for more than 72 hours violates Palestinian law.[6]
This page was last modified on 29 December 2011 at 09:04.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walid_Husayin
pelsar
(12,283 posts)not to difficult...if your a Palestinian living in the west bank under the PA, defaming religion might get you a visit from the authorities.. that is why he was picked up
if your a Palestinians living in gaza, defaming the koran will get you arrested.
__
parse the words all you like, there is no uprising in gaza (guess that means they've accepted shari law under hamas for the meantime-didnt you say they "wouldn't"?)
and you believe that these govts are acceptable...correct?
shira
(30,109 posts)One poll from 1988 and another from 2011 shows the majority of Palestinians would - despite your fantasies - stand for sharia law as the basis for their state...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=1009
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)to live Islamic law, and other questions in the poll support that too such as the sharp fall in Hamas 'popularity' but tell us do you routinely keep 34 year old polls around? your 'score keeping' abilities are admirable indeed
shira
(30,109 posts)That's 64%.
Oh, that's right. You must be under the impression 24% who want a system like other Arab countries want something other than a sharia led state, is that right? Tell me, which other Arab countries would they be referring to whose laws are not based primarily on sharia?
Oh, BTW, the 2011 poll by Stanley Greenberg and a genuine Palestinian polling firm showed 55% of Palestinians in favor of sharia...
http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B9314a74c-c58d-43ae-83f8-73a434f7d1ea%7D/NOV2010_PALESTINIANPOLLREPORT.PDF
Not much has changed since 1988, has it?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but your opinion and conjecture are noted BTW did you notice that less than 100% voted on that question?
eta originally you used the poll to argue against a one state solution but now you seem to be arguing against a two state solution alsootherwise what is your purpose here?
thank you
shira
(30,109 posts)...cooked the numbers. You just don't like narrative busting polls, like for example, the annual Pew Poll showing over 95% of Palestinians and mideast Arabs have negative views of Jews.
eta: The fact is I have 3 polls proving you wrong. You have nothing but your own opinion.
eta originally you used the poll to argue against a one state solution but now you seem to be arguing against a two state solution alsootherwise what is your purpose here?
Be clear. I have no idea what you're getting at...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you have no idea what I'm getting at? well first you argue against a one state solution and now you seek to demonize Palestinians what is your purpose here?
shira
(30,109 posts)The fact is 3 polls all say the same thing, that most Palestinians prefer a state based on sharia law.
I don't see how I'm demonizing Palestinians. If I were making crap up, exagerrating, lying, and telling half truths in order to portray them unfairly then that would be demonization.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...really prefer a secular democracy / no sharia?
Because if not, you were just blowing smoke - right?
See, the 1988 and 2011 polls show 10% and 12% in favor of a secular democracy or European style government. We don't even have to bring in the Israel Project Poll.
So how do you work around this narrative buster? You're still okay with one state if it's a secular democracy, right? The problem being only 10-12% of Palestinians want that. So how can you say you're in favor of a chaotic situation that will result in a bloodbath and the very antithesis of Western liberal values?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as seen here on this thread B'Tselem demonizes Israel?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11343073
shira
(30,109 posts)...then it's not a stretch arguing his organization demonizes Israel.
Yiftachel has made an academic career out of churning out propaganda pieces demonizing Israel and then passing them off as scholarly research. Ben-Gurion University is a place where one can get hired and promoted simply on the basis of being an anti-Zionist activist and propagandist. (Yiftachel is not the only such faculty member at BGU.)
Yiftachel specializes in promoting the view that Israel is a colonial apartheid state that must be dismembered and that Zionism is a form of racism. His whole new “book” is devoted to denouncing the very concept of a Jewish homeland or even a Jewish demographic majority in any part of Israel. While he does not openly condemn Jews for living in Tel Aviv, he certainly thinks that they have no place “invading” the “Palestinian” areas of the Galilee and the Negev – areas which (it hardly needs to be pointed out) are not in the West Bank or Gaza but rather in pre-1967 Israel. His proposed replacement for Israel is a “bi-national state,” no doubt patterned after Lebanon, Bosnia, Rwanda and present-day Iraq. Bi-nationalism is his solution to Israel’s “creeping apartheid.”
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/jewishdivide/vanleer.html
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)priceless
shira
(30,109 posts)...that it's difficult taking B'tselem seriously WRT human rights violations. Imagine a grassroots human rights organization anywhere else in the world against the very existence of the state they're working to "improve". It's unimaginable because it's absurd.
So again, groups that demonize Israel - and B'tselem must be included here - have no right to call themselves pro-Israel.
Damn, the chair of B'tselem believes Israel has no right to exist and we're to infer they're pro-Israel?
That's pure insanity!
Jessica Montell is the Executive Director there and she promotes the Apartheid analogy that Richard Goldstone, of all people, has labeled demonization.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and yes I understand that you along with some other like minded try to delegitimize B'Tselem but for most of us it just does not work to well bu please do not stop it gets better with every post