Israel bans Arab political parties from elections

Thanatos

Couscous wrote: »

geckahn wrote: »

Via Sullivan:

Israel’s Central Elections Commission has banned Arab parties. Ackerman sighs. Yglesias calls it a "poorly timed PR move." Yaacov Lozowick says that the decision will almost certainly be overturned:

...the Arab parties will run in the upcoming elections, because the final say is the court's. The decision of yesterday's panel is certain to be struck down...yesterday's vote was pure theatre, a win for all sides. The right-wing politicians who initiated the ban showed themselves fierce defenders of Zionist hard-wingery; the Arab MKs got to shout their worst on national TV, hoping this will encourage a larger percent of their own potential constituents to support them. The Left, most vocally Merertz, had the opportunity to distance themselves from the mainstream, which they're having a hard time doing these days because on the main issue, the operation in Gaza, they can't afford to be to critical since even their voters support it. Whoever dislikes the court will soon be given yet another reason to decry how it intervenes. A fine day was had by all.

What about the moderate parties?

No such thing.

Aegis

geckahn wrote: »

Via Sullivan:

Israel’s Central Elections Commission has banned Arab parties. Ackerman sighs. Yglesias calls it a "poorly timed PR move." Yaacov Lozowick says that the decision will almost certainly be overturned:

...the Arab parties will run in the upcoming elections, because the final say is the court's. The decision of yesterday's panel is certain to be struck down...yesterday's vote was pure theatre, a win for all sides. The right-wing politicians who initiated the ban showed themselves fierce defenders of Zionist hard-wingery; the Arab MKs got to shout their worst on national TV, hoping this will encourage a larger percent of their own potential constituents to support them. The Left, most vocally Merertz, had the opportunity to distance themselves from the mainstream, which they're having a hard time doing these days because on the main issue, the operation in Gaza, they can't afford to be to critical since even their voters support it. Whoever dislikes the court will soon be given yet another reason to decry how it intervenes. A fine day was had by all.

No offence to Sullivan, but Israel has already demonstrated it can and will ignore their Supreme Court rulings as recent as a few weeks ago. Saying 'the courts will overturn this' is slightly undermined by that.

kildy

To be fair, the courts have successfully overturned this before. It appears only the IDF feels free enough to actively ignore supreme court rulings.

edit: still shocked and amazed that this stunt is now becoming a regular thing.

Picardathon

Thanatos wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

geckahn wrote: »

Via Sullivan:

Israel’s Central Elections Commission has banned Arab parties. Ackerman sighs. Yglesias calls it a "poorly timed PR move." Yaacov Lozowick says that the decision will almost certainly be overturned:

...the Arab parties will run in the upcoming elections, because the final say is the court's. The decision of yesterday's panel is certain to be struck down...yesterday's vote was pure theatre, a win for all sides. The right-wing politicians who initiated the ban showed themselves fierce defenders of Zionist hard-wingery; the Arab MKs got to shout their worst on national TV, hoping this will encourage a larger percent of their own potential constituents to support them. The Left, most vocally Merertz, had the opportunity to distance themselves from the mainstream, which they're having a hard time doing these days because on the main issue, the operation in Gaza, they can't afford to be to critical since even their voters support it. Whoever dislikes the court will soon be given yet another reason to decry how it intervenes. A fine day was had by all.

What about the moderate parties?

No such thing.

The Israeli center is probably Kadima and Labor, although that's more the left part.
I'm really surprised by the seats outside of Shas that are held by ultra-nationalist jewish parties (At my count, that means that orthodox or nationalist parties hold 30% of the kinesset seats, assuming that there's some one seater party that's even further to the right). And that doesn't count Likud, which got browbeated in the last election and doesn't have any room left to fall.
Honestly I'm terrified of the political situation. Considering the orthodox birthrate is much higher than the general Israeli birthrate I don't think that the ultra-orthodox settler supporters are going to be reduced to more than a quarter of the kinesset, and they could very well approach a majority. That's...fuck.

lazegamer

kildy wrote: »

To be fair, the courts have successfully overturned this before. It appears only the IDF feels free enough to actively ignore supreme court rulings.

edit: still shocked and amazed that this stunt is now becoming a regular thing.

This is said a lot, as if the IDF is some monolithic entity. As I understand it, the chain of command for the IDF is the Chief of General Staff --> Defense Minister --> Prime Miniister in Israel? I'm a little hazy as to where the pressure has to come from, but I would assume there is a check on the Prime Minister's ability to ignore the courts completely. Whose responsibility is it and why isn't it being used? A lack of political will?

shryke

lazegamer wrote: »

kildy wrote: »

To be fair, the courts have successfully overturned this before. It appears only the IDF feels free enough to actively ignore supreme court rulings.

edit: still shocked and amazed that this stunt is now becoming a regular thing.

This is said a lot, as if the IDF is some monolithic entity. As I understand it, the chain of command for the IDF is the Chief of General Staff --> Defense Minister --> Prime Miniister in Israel? I'm a little hazy as to where the pressure has to come from, but I would assume there is a check on the Prime Minister's ability to ignore the courts completely. Whose responsibility is it and why isn't it being used? A lack of political will?

As I understand it, it's alot of this. Because of the draft and the preferential treatment given to veterans and such, the IDF and those who are/used to be in it are a very powerful political force.

kildy

lazegamer wrote: »

kildy wrote: »

To be fair, the courts have successfully overturned this before. It appears only the IDF feels free enough to actively ignore supreme court rulings.

edit: still shocked and amazed that this stunt is now becoming a regular thing.

This is said a lot, as if the IDF is some monolithic entity. As I understand it, the chain of command for the IDF is the Chief of General Staff --> Defense Minister --> Prime Miniister in Israel? I'm a little hazy as to where the pressure has to come from, but I would assume there is a check on the Prime Minister's ability to ignore the courts completely. Whose responsibility is it and why isn't it being used? A lack of political will?

More than likely, the same situation as the US these past years. The courts lack actual force, just the declaration of law. The guys who are to enforce this disagree with the courts, and pull a Jackson.

The breakdown in our systems is that you can have all the technical power you want, but you need actual power when someone high enough up decides to make an issue out of it. Unless the PM tells everyone under him to knock it the fuck off and obey the courts, you'd need someone with the authority and desire to tell the cops to go arrest the IDF command in the middle of a military operation.

Scalfin

Thanatos wrote: »

Scalfin wrote: »

If they did publicly come out against the war, the answer is probably that there are fewer members of that party is the Knesset then there are Arabs outside the banned parties, so nobody cares. They also weren't mentioned in the report of the near riot in the Knesset (or was it the council?), where the two ultranationalist parties got into a pissing contest with the two Arab parties. Guess who won?

Does anybody know whether the three major parties (Labour, Likud, Kadima) are secular of Jewish? It sounds like Labour is the Israeli branch of an international party, so I'm guessing it's secular.

I'm really not prepared to let the Israeli Jews off the hook for the behavior of their parties, and here's why:

Kadima 29 (hawkish on the Conflict; founded by a war criminal known as the "Butcher of Beirut")
Labor 18 (currently hawkish on the Conflict, historically supported settlers; any of the really liberal members left for Meretz-Yachad)
Likud 12 (very hawkish on the Conflict, unquestionably very racist--though not quite as much so as Yisreal Beitenu--and previously led by the aforementioned "Butcher of Beirut.")
Shas 12 (ultra-orthodox Jewish party)
Yisreal Beitenu 11 (nativist party; basically Jewish supremacists)
National Union/National Religious Party 9 (religious parties with strong ties to Yisreal Beitenu)
United Torah Judaism 6 (ultra-orthodox Jewish party)

So, there's 97 of your 120 Knesset seats. Keep in mind that Arabs make up 20% of the population of Israel. Then, you've got your pensioners, who really don't concern themselves with much other than old Jewish people, but are currently allied with Kadima (so really, I could probably add seven more seats to the Kadima camp), though the only reason they even have seats is due to protest votes from younger people. Then, you've got your Balad and United Arab List/Ta'al, the Arab parties, with seven seats. Meretz-Yachad, who are hella left-wing, and have a few Arab members, with five seats. And the Arab-Jewish Alliance, Hadash, with 3 seats. Basically, the overwhelming majority of these parties are incredibly theocratic and/or pretty racist against Arabs. And by "overwhelming majority," I mean 80%. So, we're not talking about some bare majority, here, that just manages to just beat the threshold; we're talking, like, if every self-described Christian in the U.S. supported a racist/theocratic coalition party, including people who don't go to church at all, people who only show up on Christmas and Easter, and hella liberal movements like the Unitarian Universalists. This is not some minority movement in Israel; this is a substantial majority movement, and we're talking about positions which are essentially taken by every party except the Arabs and the Communists.

So yes, I hold the Israeli Jews responsible for this sort of entrenched, government-supported oppression, because they've pretty much universally voted for it, with the exception of a few very small minorities.

No offense, but saying anybody who supports settlements, especially Labour, which favours trading unsettled land inside Israel in return for existing settlements, is racist, you're not going to be held as an unbiased source of info.

Thanatos

Scalfin wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

Scalfin wrote: »

If they did publicly come out against the war, the answer is probably that there are fewer members of that party is the Knesset then there are Arabs outside the banned parties, so nobody cares. They also weren't mentioned in the report of the near riot in the Knesset (or was it the council?), where the two ultranationalist parties got into a pissing contest with the two Arab parties. Guess who won?

Does anybody know whether the three major parties (Labour, Likud, Kadima) are secular of Jewish? It sounds like Labour is the Israeli branch of an international party, so I'm guessing it's secular.

I'm really not prepared to let the Israeli Jews off the hook for the behavior of their parties, and here's why:

Kadima 29 (hawkish on the Conflict; founded by a war criminal known as the "Butcher of Beirut")
Labor 18 (currently hawkish on the Conflict, historically supported settlers; any of the really liberal members left for Meretz-Yachad)
Likud 12 (very hawkish on the Conflict, unquestionably very racist--though not quite as much so as Yisreal Beitenu--and previously led by the aforementioned "Butcher of Beirut.")
Shas 12 (ultra-orthodox Jewish party)
Yisreal Beitenu 11 (nativist party; basically Jewish supremacists)
National Union/National Religious Party 9 (religious parties with strong ties to Yisreal Beitenu)
United Torah Judaism 6 (ultra-orthodox Jewish party)

So, there's 97 of your 120 Knesset seats. Keep in mind that Arabs make up 20% of the population of Israel. Then, you've got your pensioners, who really don't concern themselves with much other than old Jewish people, but are currently allied with Kadima (so really, I could probably add seven more seats to the Kadima camp), though the only reason they even have seats is due to protest votes from younger people. Then, you've got your Balad and United Arab List/Ta'al, the Arab parties, with seven seats. Meretz-Yachad, who are hella left-wing, and have a few Arab members, with five seats. And the Arab-Jewish Alliance, Hadash, with 3 seats. Basically, the overwhelming majority of these parties are incredibly theocratic and/or pretty racist against Arabs. And by "overwhelming majority," I mean 80%. So, we're not talking about some bare majority, here, that just manages to just beat the threshold; we're talking, like, if every self-described Christian in the U.S. supported a racist/theocratic coalition party, including people who don't go to church at all, people who only show up on Christmas and Easter, and hella liberal movements like the Unitarian Universalists. This is not some minority movement in Israel; this is a substantial majority movement, and we're talking about positions which are essentially taken by every party except the Arabs and the Communists.

So yes, I hold the Israeli Jews responsible for this sort of entrenched, government-supported oppression, because they've pretty much universally voted for it, with the exception of a few very small minorities.

No offense, but saying anybody who supports settlements, especially Labour, which favours trading unsettled land inside Israel in return for existing settlements, is racist, you're not going to be held as an unbiased source of info.

The closest Labour gets to supporting Palestine having any land is "not ruling out the establishment of a Palestinian state with limited sovereignty." Not to mention that they're backers of the war in Gaza, and the expulsion of the Arab parties from the Knesset.

Sheep

So yes, I hold the Israeli Jews responsible for this sort of entrenched, government-supported oppression, because they've pretty much universally voted for it, with the exception of a few very small minorities.

Again, not fair. I'm from Mississippi and Trent Lott hardly carried my opinion.

Thanatos

Sheep wrote: »

So yes, I hold the Israeli Jews responsible for this sort of entrenched, government-supported oppression, because they've pretty much universally voted for it, with the exception of a few very small minorities.

Again, not fair. I'm from Mississippi and Trent Lott hardly carried my opinion.

I'm not saying I hold you individually responsible for Trent Lott, I'm saying I hold white people in Mississippi in general responsible for him.

Cervetus

OptimusZed wrote: »

Szechuanosaurus wrote: »

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Israeli civilians get held accountable by foreign countries for some of the shit their government does with alarming consistency.

As someone who has gotten into a scuffle in a Belgian bar over a President I didn't vote for, this isn't an Israeli-only phenomenon.

I wouldn't blame every Israeli for what's happening, but as an American myself I certainly blame Americans in general for two terms of Bush.

DevoutlyApathetic

DarkCrawler wrote: »

What party did Germany ban? The Nazi one?

Because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany_(NPD)

Essentially the obvious neo-nazi parties. It's happened twice and failed again recently. It's a power written into their basic laws (essentially a constitution) for their Supreme Court. It was offered as counter proof that banning parties is always bad and a sign of a dying democracy.

The recent attempt failed not because of moral outrage but because the court found that a large percentage of the higher ranking party members were in fact government operatives working undercover operations.

Also you link is broken, telling me only that you fail.

HamHamJ

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

The recent attempt failed not because of moral outrage but because the court found that a large percentage of the higher ranking party members were in fact government operatives working undercover operations.

This is pretty amazing.

Couscous

HamHamJ wrote: »

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

The recent attempt failed not because of moral outrage but because the court found that a large percentage of the higher ranking party members were in fact government operatives working undercover operations.

This is pretty amazing.

It would make a good comedy.

What specific things are the banned parties accused of doing to aid and abet the terrorists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balad_(political_party)

Prior to the 2003 elections, the Central Elections Committee banned the party from running by a one-vote margin, claiming it did not respect Israel's legally-mandated status as a Jewish state and that its leader supported terrorism.[8] The move to ban Balad was initiated by Michael Kleiner, the leader of the right-wing Herut party, who alleged that Balad was "a cover-up for illegal activity" and that it "supports terror organizations, identifies with the enemy and acts against Israel as a Jewish and democratic state."[9] The Gush Shalom activist group criticized the decision saying it introduced into the committee the 'aggressive, predatory and racist attitudes of the majority of the extreme right' who they believe favor banning all Arab MKs. Bishara personally responded to the Election Committee's charges that he supported Hezbollah by saying, "I believe that a people living under occupation [have] the right to fight against it, but I never called on the Palestinians to embark on an armed struggle against Israel. I never supported violent activity." The Elections Committee had also voted to ban Ahmad Tibi of the Ta'al party who had formed an electoral alliance with the left wing Hadash coalition.[10].

However, the bans on both parties were overturned by the Israeli Supreme Court.[8] Supreme Court Justice Misha'el Kheshin told the election committee that Bishara's past expressions of support for Hezbollah in Lebanon had angered him, although he voted to allow him to run in the elections because "Israel's democracy is strong and can tolerate irregular cases", and thought that there was insufficient evidence for the ban.[10] Balad won three seats in the elections, filled by Bishara, Wasil Taha, and Jamal Zahalka.

None of that sounds particularly horrible or much of a crime.

Marlor

Thanatos wrote: »

Likud 12 (very hawkish on the Conflict, unquestionably very racist--though not quite as much so as Yisreal Beitenu--and previously led by the aforementioned "Butcher of Beirut.")

Not to mention that they were essentially formed from a terrorist group.

Irgun (responsible for such acts as the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre) became the Herut party, which later allied with other smaller parties to become Gahal, then Likud.

Many high-ranking members of Kadima are from Likud, so it shares much of the same heritage.

Picardathon

Marlor wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

Likud 12 (very hawkish on the Conflict, unquestionably very racist--though not quite as much so as Yisreal Beitenu--and previously led by the aforementioned "Butcher of Beirut.")

Not to mention that they were essentially formed from a terrorist group.

Irgun (responsible for such acts as the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre) became the Herut party, which later allied with other smaller parties to become Gahal, then Likud.

Many high-ranking members of Kadima are from Likud, so it shares much of the same heritage.

They also were in power when peace with Egypt was secured.
Way to manipulate history for your own means, guys.
Are they hard right? Yes. But their policies are a much better indication of that than "Likud was terrorist 60 years ago so they must be terrorist now lolol!"
Shit changes in sixty years man.
Also, Kadima has a left branch too, represented by Tzipi Livni, who actually led Kadima victory in recent elections but couldn't organize a coalition.

shryke

Picardathon wrote: »

Marlor wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

Likud 12 (very hawkish on the Conflict, unquestionably very racist--though not quite as much so as Yisreal Beitenu--and previously led by the aforementioned "Butcher of Beirut.")

Not to mention that they were essentially formed from a terrorist group.

Irgun (responsible for such acts as the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre) became the Herut party, which later allied with other smaller parties to become Gahal, then Likud.

Many high-ranking members of Kadima are from Likud, so it shares much of the same heritage.

They also were in power when peace with Egypt was secured.
Way to manipulate history for your own means, guys.
Are they hard right? Yes. But their policies are a much better indication of that than "Likud was terrorist 60 years ago so they must be terrorist now lolol!"
Shit changes in sixty years man.
Also, Kadima has a left branch too, represented by Tzipi Livni, who actually led Kadima victory in recent elections but couldn't organize a coalition.

Plus, there's nothing PER SE wrong with a terrorist organization becoming a political party. Look at Sinn Fein.

Picardathon

shryke wrote: »

Picardathon wrote: »

Marlor wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

Likud 12 (very hawkish on the Conflict, unquestionably very racist--though not quite as much so as Yisreal Beitenu--and previously led by the aforementioned "Butcher of Beirut.")

Not to mention that they were essentially formed from a terrorist group.

Irgun (responsible for such acts as the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre) became the Herut party, which later allied with other smaller parties to become Gahal, then Likud.

Many high-ranking members of Kadima are from Likud, so it shares much of the same heritage.

They also were in power when peace with Egypt was secured.
Way to manipulate history for your own means, guys.
Are they hard right? Yes. But their policies are a much better indication of that than "Likud was terrorist 60 years ago so they must be terrorist now lolol!"
Shit changes in sixty years man.
Also, Kadima has a left branch too, represented by Tzipi Livni, who actually led Kadima victory in recent elections but couldn't organize a coalition.

Plus, there's nothing PER SE wrong with a terrorist organization becoming a political party. Look at Sinn Fein.

There are so many good points to be made with the problems with the Israeli political system and its continued rightward movement, but "sixty years ago one of the parties did some shit" is not one of them.

Marlor

Picardathon wrote: »

Also, Kadima has a left branch too, represented by Tzipi Livni, who actually led Kadima victory in recent elections but couldn't organize a coalition.

Livni's father was one of Irgun's senior commanders.

Picardathon wrote: »

There are so many good points to be made with the problems with the Israeli political system and its continued rightward movement, but "sixty years ago one of the parties did some shit" is not one of them.

I just find it hypocritical for members of an unapologetic ex-terrorist organisation to vote to ban parties because a few of those parties' members supposedly spoke to supporters of Hamas.

Thanatos

Picardathon wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

Picardathon wrote: »

Marlor wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

Likud 12 (very hawkish on the Conflict, unquestionably very racist--though not quite as much so as Yisreal Beitenu--and previously led by the aforementioned "Butcher of Beirut.")

Not to mention that they were essentially formed from a terrorist group.

Irgun (responsible for such acts as the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre) became the Herut party, which later allied with other smaller parties to become Gahal, then Likud.

Many high-ranking members of Kadima are from Likud, so it shares much of the same heritage.

They also were in power when peace with Egypt was secured.
Way to manipulate history for your own means, guys.
Are they hard right? Yes. But their policies are a much better indication of that than "Likud was terrorist 60 years ago so they must be terrorist now lolol!"
Shit changes in sixty years man.
Also, Kadima has a left branch too, represented by Tzipi Livni, who actually led Kadima victory in recent elections but couldn't organize a coalition.

Plus, there's nothing PER SE wrong with a terrorist organization becoming a political party. Look at Sinn Fein.

There are so many good points to be made with the problems with the Israeli political system and its continued rightward movement, but "sixty years ago one of the parties did some shit" is not one of them.

Yeah, but you don't get to say "Israel can't negotiate with Hamas because they're a violent terrorist organization" when if the UN and UK had had that attitude, Israel wouldn't exist today.

Incenjucar

Thanatos wrote: »

Yeah, but you don't get to say "Israel can't negotiate with Hamas because they're a violent terrorist organization" when if the UN and UK had had that attitude, Israel wouldn't exist today.

Maybe that's evidence of what happens when you don't follow the rule.

JeDayKeen

Hey Marlor, just FYI, call the Irgun "Aztal" from now on, it took me 5 minutes to understand who did you relate to (nobody calls it that around here, that's all- Irgun mean Organisation). And the party was named Mahahl (Miflegat Heyrut Leumit- National Freedom Party), not Gahal.

And Thanatos, neither the UN or the British negotiated with the locals really, they decided to back off pretty much on their own. And seriously, blaming all Israelis as racists... America voted for Bush twice, I don't blame every and each American for the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq. Honeslty, I don't even think that people that voted for Bush could have seen this coming.

PS
I don't ok Aztal not Lehi attacks.

Thanatos

JeDayKeen wrote: »

Hey Marlor, just FYI, call the Irgun "Aztal" from now on, it took me 5 minutes to understand who did you relate to (nobody calls it that around here, that's all- Irgun mean Organisation). And the party was named Mahahl (Miflegat Heyrut Leumit- National Freedom Party), not Gahal.

And Thanatos, neither the UN or the British negotiated with the locals really, they decided to back off pretty much on their own. And seriously, blaming all Israelis as racists... America voted for Bush twice, I don't blame every and each American for the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq. Honeslty, I don't even think that people that voted for Bush could have seen this coming.

PS
I don't ok Aztal not Lehi attacks.

Bush didn't even win the popular vote in 2000, and he only won by a couple of percentage in 2004. We're talking about 75%+ of your voters, here.

Marlor

JeDayKeen wrote: »

Hey Marlor, just FYI, call the Irgun "Aztal" from now on, it took me 5 minutes to understand who did you relate to (nobody calls it that around here, that's all- Irgun mean Organisation). And the party was named Mahahl (Miflegat Heyrut Leumit- National Freedom Party), not Gahal.

Most history books call them Gahal (or Gachal) and Irgun. Britannica also agrees.

So I think I'll stick with them, as they seem to be the accepted English names for the organisations.

JeDayKeen

Marlor wrote: »

Most history books call them Gahal (or Gachal) and Irgun. Britannica also agrees.

So I think I'll stick with them, as they seem to be the accepted English names for the organisations.

I'm going to correct myself, the original name before Gahal (which was somewhere around the mid 70s I think) was Herut (the first Knesset name, Gahal is a bit later then that, though you can trace the origins from Gahal to Herut to Irgun).
Irgun stands for Irgun Ztava Laumi, the hebrew acrynom is Aztal, most Israelis don't refer to it as The Irgun, that why I was a bit stumped (though, reading around the web some, it seems that the English really do refer to them as the Irgun).

And Thanatos... So, only 50% of the Americans are responsible according to your theory? Or maybe alot of Americans that voted for Bush didn't really want this to happen, and voted for other reasons like his stances on various other subjects?

That's aside, most people who voted for Kadima beloved they will continue the path set by Sharon of withdrawing from the territories and moving toward peace (bringing the now comatose Sharon as a testament for this party character for founding it, ignoring that he is the one cited to say the Occupation must end, is like me bringing Andrew Jackson as one of the original leaders and shapers of the Democratic Party and say that it is racist today because of his stances against Indians 200 years ago), and Labor is considered even further "Left" then that (come on, the party "used to support settlements"? They voted for the removal of settlements not 2 years ago and work now to take the ones from West Bank out. If you want to use outdated information, you can say that Israel has the history of outing people out of their land and use occupation of Cna'an 3000 years ago).
Things change.

Thanatos

JeDayKeen wrote: »

Marlor wrote: »

Most history books call them Gahal (or Gachal) and Irgun. Britannica also agrees.

So I think I'll stick with them, as they seem to be the accepted English names for the organisations.

I'm going to correct myself, the original name before Gahal (which was somewhere around the mid 70s I think) was Herut (the first Knesset name, Gahal is a bit later then that, though you can trace the origins from Gahal to Herut to Irgun).
Irgun stands for Irgun Ztava Laumi, the hebrew acrynom is Aztal, most Israelis don't refer to it as The Irgun, that why I was a bit stumped (though, reading around the web some, it seems that the English really do refer to them as the Irgun).

And Thanatos... So, only 50% of the Americans are responsible according to your theory? Or maybe alot of Americans that voted for Bush didn't really want this to happen, and voted for other reasons like his stances on various other subjects?

That's aside, most people who voted for Kadima beloved they will continue the path set by Sharon of withdrawing from the territories and moving toward peace (bringing the now comatose Sharon as a testament for this party character for founding it, ignoring that he is the one cited to say the Occupation must end, is like me bringing Andrew Jackson as one of the original leaders and shapers of the Democratic Party and say that it is racist today because of his stances against Indians 200 years ago), and Labor is considered even further "Left" then that (come on, the party "used to support settlements"? They voted for the removal of settlements not 2 years ago and work now to take the ones from West Bank out. If you want to use outdated information, you can say that Israel has the history of outing people out of their land and use occupation of Cna'an 3000 years ago).
Things change.

Okay, did you just compare me using Ariel Sharon to using Andrew Jackson? Seriously? Because Ariel Sharon was prime minister until two years ago. Andrew Jackson was president two hundred years ago. I think there's a difference.

And both Labour and Kadima supported both the war and the banning of the Arab parties.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that yes, people can vote for Republicans for lots of different reasons, because our coalitions are basically formed before elections. But someone voting for Yisreal Beitenu or Likud really only votes for them for one reason, because if they disagreed with them on the whole "hating Arabs" thing, they have plenty of other parties to pick from, which isn't the case in the U.S.

JeDayKeen

Thanatos wrote: »

Okay, did you just compare me using Ariel Sharon to using Andrew Jackson? Seriously? Because Ariel Sharon was prime minister until two years ago. Andrew Jackson was president two hundred years ago. I think there's a difference.

And both Labour and Kadima supported both the war and the banning of the Arab parties.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that yes, people can vote for Republicans for lots of different reasons, because our coalitions are basically formed before elections. But someone voting for Yisreal Beitenu or Likud really only votes for them for one reason, because if they disagreed with them on the whole "hating Arabs" thing, they have plenty of other parties to pick from, which isn't the case in the U.S.

Well, Ariel Sharon was PM two years ago and I think made some serious advances toward peace, his actions as "The Butcher of Beirut" as you say, was, what? 30 years ago? My point was things change, people change, parties change.
Supporting the war and being racist is two different things, but there is another thread for this.
And no arguments from me about who is voting for Yisrael Bytenu (Likud is a bit more borderline, there is tradition in voting here, mostly due to Labor mistreating North African Jewish immigrants 50 years ago, but I do share your opinion regarding some of their voters).

Docken

Thanatos wrote: »

JeDayKeen wrote: »

Marlor wrote: »

Most history books call them Gahal (or Gachal) and Irgun. Britannica also agrees.

So I think I'll stick with them, as they seem to be the accepted English names for the organisations.

I'm going to correct myself, the original name before Gahal (which was somewhere around the mid 70s I think) was Herut (the first Knesset name, Gahal is a bit later then that, though you can trace the origins from Gahal to Herut to Irgun).
Irgun stands for Irgun Ztava Laumi, the hebrew acrynom is Aztal, most Israelis don't refer to it as The Irgun, that why I was a bit stumped (though, reading around the web some, it seems that the English really do refer to them as the Irgun).

And Thanatos... So, only 50% of the Americans are responsible according to your theory? Or maybe alot of Americans that voted for Bush didn't really want this to happen, and voted for other reasons like his stances on various other subjects?

That's aside, most people who voted for Kadima beloved they will continue the path set by Sharon of withdrawing from the territories and moving toward peace (bringing the now comatose Sharon as a testament for this party character for founding it, ignoring that he is the one cited to say the Occupation must end, is like me bringing Andrew Jackson as one of the original leaders and shapers of the Democratic Party and say that it is racist today because of his stances against Indians 200 years ago), and Labor is considered even further "Left" then that (come on, the party "used to support settlements"? They voted for the removal of settlements not 2 years ago and work now to take the ones from West Bank out. If you want to use outdated information, you can say that Israel has the history of outing people out of their land and use occupation of Cna'an 3000 years ago).
Things change.

Okay, did you just compare me using Ariel Sharon to using Andrew Jackson? Seriously? Because Ariel Sharon was prime minister until two years ago. Andrew Jackson was president two hundred years ago. I think there's a difference.

And both Labour and Kadima supported both the war and the banning of the Arab parties.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that yes, people can vote for Republicans for lots of different reasons, because our coalitions are basically formed before elections. But someone voting for Yisreal Beitenu or Likud really only votes for them for one reason, because if they disagreed with them on the whole "hating Arabs" thing, they have plenty of other parties to pick from, which isn't the case in the U.S.

Yeah this is bad... real bad.

Sometimes I don't understand Israel. Things were precarious enough as it was... people were already concerned.

This cynical political play does nobody any good and panders to all the wrong elements of the Israeli electorate.

To be honest though, I see this as way more of a political move than a 'racist' one... although it is playing on racist sentiment (also not a good thing)... every politician knows that at this point, stirring the Arab pot will get them votes. Of course I can see how saying that might be splitting hairs...

Not a good look.

One Theory: Hiliary has been an avowed Israel supporting from way back, so its possible that the Knesset is testing its mileage with the new administration...

Richard_Dastardly

Docken wrote: »

One Theory: Hiliary has been an avowed Israel supporting from way back, so its possible that the Knesset is testing its mileage with the new administration...

How much mileage can you get on the blood of the innocent these days?

MKR

Richard_Dastardly wrote: »

Docken wrote: »

One Theory: Hiliary has been an avowed Israel supporting from way back, so its possible that the Knesset is testing its mileage with the new administration...

How much mileage can you get on the blood of the innocent these days?

I'm sure someone is fast at work on a blood-powered engine.

Jealous Deva

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media


Isreal attempts to spam the internet into submission.


Good luck with that.

Couscous

Jealous Deva wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media


Isreal attempts to spam the internet into submission.


Good luck with that.

This better not result in 4chan versus Israel.

Speaker

Couscous wrote: »

Jealous Deva wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media


Isreal attempts to spam the internet into submission.


Good luck with that.

This better not result in 4chan versus Israel.

That . . . that would be incredible.

Sheep

Couscous wrote: »

Jealous Deva wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media


Isreal attempts to spam the internet into submission.


Good luck with that.

This better not result in 4chan versus Israel.

Oh man.

We know who would win that one.

wwtMask

Sheep wrote: »

Couscous wrote: »

Jealous Deva wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media


Isreal attempts to spam the internet into submission.


Good luck with that.

This better not result in 4chan versus Israel.

Oh man.

We know who would win that one.

So do I: nobody.

MKR

The only winning move is to not play.

kildy

At least it'll wind up with a lot of things being against the 5th geneva convention.

Ringo

I find it odd that I think the American attitude of "Negative public opinion? They can go fuck themselves!" is less frightening than this. At least we're honest?

kildy

Being honest, we'd probably pull the same shit if our government setup was a little different. We just don't have a method of a party banning another party from the elections. We've got PLENTY of you hate the troops/are unamerican shit however.