a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Israeli Election
- Thread starter CapelDodger
- Start date
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The term "democratic" covers a multitude of sins, as the saying goes. You say yourself that military service is compulsory, as if that comes with the geography, not the political context. You say there is no militarisation, but Sharon made his name in the military, so did Barak, so did Rabin. Begin and Shamir were ex-terrorists of the Jabotinsky faction, which was explicitly miltarist. The Hagganah was under the authority of the Histadrut in 1948, and thus of Ben-Gurion. The IDF has always had an enormous influence on policy, and has often shaped it itself. The Chiefs of Staff have played a very different role in Israel from the one they've played in the US - but both are democracies.
I do not imply anything vaguely, I state my position quite clearly : Israeli politics are militarised, and the military is politicised, in a way that is unique amongst Western Democracies. Which Israel claims membership of. Consider my quote
Here we have military personnel - and "reserve" has to be interpreted in the context of a nation-in-arms, where military service is compulsory - involving themselves in party politics, let alone national politics. That isn't strawman-ish, but even less so is the influential role of the military establishment in Israeli political history. The IDF hasn't simply carried out the duties laid on it by the government, it has played an important part in specifying those duties.
The IDF is part of Israeli politics in a way that a US military is very explicitly not part of US politics, or British, or French, or German, or whoever. My evocation of Cromwell and Wellington may be abstruse, but throw in Napleon and Hindenberg and it becomes clearer.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Arad broke this to The Guardian. Commonly excoriated by zionists (among others) as pro-terrorist, liberal, even pinko, and definitely not to be relied on. I see a kite being flown, with denial the immediate fall-back. But I'm a cynic.
The Nix 'n' Chinx argument will surely play well with the urban, liberal Ashkenazi, given that polls have for a few years shown them to be less intransigent than their governments. Sharon might actually achieve a final settlement. He is an egotist - with dynastic pretensions - and not really committed to any principle. He may be a psychopath, there's plenty of evidence indicating it, but he's definitely an egotist and mortal. A final settlement of Israel's physical definition would make him unique amongst the nation-founders.
What he will have to do to achieve it is to lose the obsession with Jerusalem. In your cite the exchange is Israeli recognition for Israeli security. Israel has long claimed that all it wants is recognition and security, but when Jerusalem is brought up they absolutely have to have all of that as well. Even if recognition and security could be obtained if some small part of Jerusalem - the al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock, say - was not part of Israel.
That's the bullet Sharon has to bite. If he seeks the centre ground, where symbols lose their resonance, he may well get his teeth in. But not precipitately. March 28th 2006 is a long way off in politics.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I can't imagine his health it too good, either. His is well into his 70s, and overweight. Maybe that explains his sense of urgency.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
He must be well aware of his own mortality. And it's not just time and cholesterol that are out to get him.
The polls indicate a solid win for Sharon, albeit without a majority, but has any party ever got a majority in the Knesset? A coalition of Kadima - the Sharon party - and Labour looks most likely. But there's a while to go yet.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The National Religious Party is merging with the National Union.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/650042.html
To strive, foster and seek is not a feat in itself. No feat was achieved. Despite best efforts those few rabbis who embraced nationalism have found that there is no stable synthesis of rationalism, nationalism and religion. There will no doubt be a Real NRP fragment, but after a century's effort, who will they be kidding?
) Likud wasn't Sharon's Party when he helped form it, it was Begin's, but it became Sharon's. Remember when he was gung-ho for settlements and invading Lebanon, and Begin was the haverer, doing a deal with Egypt that involved evicting Jews? Sharon did well out of not being Likud's leader at the time. And he does well out of it now.
Labour, of course, does have a long history, and isn't just Peretz's Party. There may still be surprises in store.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/650042.html
To strive, foster and seek is not a feat in itself. No feat was achieved. Despite best efforts those few rabbis who embraced nationalism have found that there is no stable synthesis of rationalism, nationalism and religion. There will no doubt be a Real NRP fragment, but after a century's effort, who will they be kidding?
Notice how the faction - "Orlev and his colleagues" - bears responsibility. And the faction is designated by the individual - Orlev. The NRP was the end-point of a shifting coalition, which is such a feature of Israeli political history and so indicative of its shaky foundations. Meant to be democratic, in fact it is dominated by individuals. Sharon's party is just that - Sharon's party. (Be there, or please to be square.
) Likud wasn't Sharon's Party when he helped form it, it was Begin's, but it became Sharon's. Remember when he was gung-ho for settlements and invading Lebanon, and Begin was the haverer, doing a deal with Egypt that involved evicting Jews? Sharon did well out of not being Likud's leader at the time. And he does well out of it now.Labour, of course, does have a long history, and isn't just Peretz's Party. There may still be surprises in store.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Again not very vague :
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/650041.html
Moshe Sharett was born before his time.
Of course, Sharon is still of the Ashkenazi generals - he commanded Unit 101, an Israeli Special Action Group back in the 50's - but his time is limited. It might see a rift between him and the younger generals, colonels, majors etc. who are likely to be stood down if peace breaks out. But that's wildly speculative; I have no good sources within the Israeli military.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Next the settlements
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/650185.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/650185.html
Diplomacy and negotiations may be put on hold until the elections, but settlement expansion won't be. Despite promises to the US. How harsh will Condi be, one wonders? She scares me, but I do come from a matriarchal family.
Mycroft has once said with his impeccable acerbic style that I adore that Capel Dodger is a master in pretending that he is very knowledgeable on that matter while in reality, he doesn’t know as much as he appears to…
I remembered his remark while reading this thread. Mycroft’s observation has some specks of truth in it—economists like CD are proverbial BS artists and the funny thing is that they dare to make fun of lawyers...—but in the same time it’s tad unfair.
This is the nature of Israeli politics. It’s easy for anybody to describe the political situation and if he is capable to list the information in an eloquent and stylish fashion, dressing his plate with syrupy details of Jewish history the way CD does, the… cake appears to be a delicacy although it’s just a common carrot cake with a fancy dressing… Capel Dodger’s concern though is not so much to appear as an expert in a field – he is so arrogant to care for our opinion… as to excuse his fierce and unfounded anti-Israeli views and make them appear justified because they are supposed to be deep rooted in historical facts.
"It's not me or you Cleopatra, it's just this monster Ben Gurion that I cannot tolerate..."
(To the mods: Please don’t interpret the above as a personal attack,so please don’t split the thread and move it to the flame wars. It’s my way to demostrate my love to CD because he likes his chocolate bitter not sweet and ask him if you don't believe me!!)
When it comes to the Israeli politics the tricky part is to be able to talk about the future.
So, since BS artistry isn’t really my field, well, at least most of the times it's not, I will attempt first to answer and then throw some new questions into the arena…. So, let’s see…
What makes the 2006 elections different?
Two things, I believe. First, we have the official and definite ideological collapse of the Israeli Right. Likud was established( in the mid 70ies if I recall correctly) as a coalition of four center and right wing parties with the Harut of Menachem Begin providing to the coalition its ideological platform. That platform was nothing more than the vision of the Great Biblical Israel and any discussion of partition equated to treason. Likud was founded on the ideas of the fanatic nationalist Jabotinsky that was quite a personality of his time. Sharon and the mignons of the coalition thought that they would manage to transform Likud into a party that would resemble to the European Christian democrats but they never explained how this would happen, maybe with the help of a miracle since all of them were religious as well…
Life has been a bitch though and proved the dreamers of Great Israel so so wrong. Begin,"Jabotinsky's son" found himself signing peace with the Egyptians.Netanyahu handed the 80% of the Holly city of Hebron to the Palestinians and old Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan fell like a tomb stone on the grave of the religious fantasies for the Great Israel.
Please note here the difference between CD's cloudy views and mine.
For Capel Dodger the evacuation of Gaza constitutes one of the fundamental reasons for a forthcoming civil war among the Israelis. I, on the contrary, believe that "Mission Disengagement" proved how marginal and isolated the idea of the Great Israel has turned into and that the society is giving a clear message to the new comers: "Yeah, we sympathize with you, now, move your a**s from Gaza and let’s forget about the whole thing, after all, you are not the ones who shuffle the cards in this country”. And they are not indeed.
So, we are heading to the elections with an ideologically collapsed Right. Ariel Sharon left the boat and established a new party founded on no ideology and so it is destined to be doomed. I hope that people here won’t take lightly the fact that “Kadima”( this is the name of the new party) hasn’t been established on principles but on the personality of its founder. Now that the Palestinian Authority is making serious efforts to combat terrorism and Hamas has decided to play the game with political terms, the security issue—the central issue for the Sharonistas-- will be viewed under a whole different prism by the Israelis. Sharonism will prove itself insufficient because once it attempts to re-define “security” it will be crystal clear that as a political proposal it’s irrelevant with a political wing of Hamas in the game.
Now let’s see the Labor.The Labor has fallen a victim of fanaticism. First, the assassination of Rabin and second Arafat and his criminals that made their life purpose to make Barak appear as an idiot in the eyes of his compatriots. What the West has done to help the Labor continue pacing in the path that would lead to an agreement? Nothing at all. The EU has been supporting and financing (!) Arafat’s terrorist gang, Arafat, locked in Ramalah, sinking in financial scandals and observing his Fateh losing ground by the fundamentalists of Hamas became more and more violent and absurd so, the coming of Sharon to power was the natural result.
So, what’s the deal with Labor now? I believe that the election of Peretz passes a message that isn’t that obvious for the moment but it will become clearer in the following months. Peretz’ prime concern is to take the control over the rabbis and make the settlers understand that they are not in the position to dictate Israel’s future. Peretz came to give an answer to the question “ Whose country is this?” and I am optimist regarding the answer.
What remains to be seen is something else though that I decided to bring in the discussion hoping that somebody will be interested in addressing the issue.
All of you are aware of my views regarding the Left. Left is by definition useless in the management of a crisis because it exhausts itself in the description of the crisis and always fails to bring a viable plan to address a problem.
So my question goes as follows.
Can we invest our hopes for peace and progress to a socialist-leftist party as the Labor of Amir Peretz or shall we wait for a radical reform of the Right on the principles of western liberalism? Do Ideologies have a role to play in the peace process in the area? For me this is the question that will be answered in the near future. And do you wish me to go a step further? Is Political Liberalism the solution to the existing problem of the quest of a democratic and secular Jewish state?
Please, do note that I am quite aware of the fact that the very core of Liberalism contradicts the concept of the Jewish state. I have an answer to that but I won’t open my cards for the moment because I am interested in reading the opinions of the “usual suspects” on the matter first.
I remembered his remark while reading this thread. Mycroft’s observation has some specks of truth in it—economists like CD are proverbial BS artists and the funny thing is that they dare to make fun of lawyers...—but in the same time it’s tad unfair.
This is the nature of Israeli politics. It’s easy for anybody to describe the political situation and if he is capable to list the information in an eloquent and stylish fashion, dressing his plate with syrupy details of Jewish history the way CD does, the… cake appears to be a delicacy although it’s just a common carrot cake with a fancy dressing… Capel Dodger’s concern though is not so much to appear as an expert in a field – he is so arrogant to care for our opinion… as to excuse his fierce and unfounded anti-Israeli views and make them appear justified because they are supposed to be deep rooted in historical facts.
"It's not me or you Cleopatra, it's just this monster Ben Gurion that I cannot tolerate..."
(To the mods: Please don’t interpret the above as a personal attack,so please don’t split the thread and move it to the flame wars. It’s my way to demostrate my love to CD because he likes his chocolate bitter not sweet and ask him if you don't believe me!!)
When it comes to the Israeli politics the tricky part is to be able to talk about the future.
So, since BS artistry isn’t really my field, well, at least most of the times it's not, I will attempt first to answer and then throw some new questions into the arena…. So, let’s see…
What makes the 2006 elections different?
Two things, I believe. First, we have the official and definite ideological collapse of the Israeli Right. Likud was established( in the mid 70ies if I recall correctly) as a coalition of four center and right wing parties with the Harut of Menachem Begin providing to the coalition its ideological platform. That platform was nothing more than the vision of the Great Biblical Israel and any discussion of partition equated to treason. Likud was founded on the ideas of the fanatic nationalist Jabotinsky that was quite a personality of his time. Sharon and the mignons of the coalition thought that they would manage to transform Likud into a party that would resemble to the European Christian democrats but they never explained how this would happen, maybe with the help of a miracle since all of them were religious as well…
Life has been a bitch though and proved the dreamers of Great Israel so so wrong. Begin,"Jabotinsky's son" found himself signing peace with the Egyptians.Netanyahu handed the 80% of the Holly city of Hebron to the Palestinians and old Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan fell like a tomb stone on the grave of the religious fantasies for the Great Israel.
Please note here the difference between CD's cloudy views and mine.
For Capel Dodger the evacuation of Gaza constitutes one of the fundamental reasons for a forthcoming civil war among the Israelis. I, on the contrary, believe that "Mission Disengagement" proved how marginal and isolated the idea of the Great Israel has turned into and that the society is giving a clear message to the new comers: "Yeah, we sympathize with you, now, move your a**s from Gaza and let’s forget about the whole thing, after all, you are not the ones who shuffle the cards in this country”. And they are not indeed.
So, we are heading to the elections with an ideologically collapsed Right. Ariel Sharon left the boat and established a new party founded on no ideology and so it is destined to be doomed. I hope that people here won’t take lightly the fact that “Kadima”( this is the name of the new party) hasn’t been established on principles but on the personality of its founder. Now that the Palestinian Authority is making serious efforts to combat terrorism and Hamas has decided to play the game with political terms, the security issue—the central issue for the Sharonistas-- will be viewed under a whole different prism by the Israelis. Sharonism will prove itself insufficient because once it attempts to re-define “security” it will be crystal clear that as a political proposal it’s irrelevant with a political wing of Hamas in the game.
Now let’s see the Labor.The Labor has fallen a victim of fanaticism. First, the assassination of Rabin and second Arafat and his criminals that made their life purpose to make Barak appear as an idiot in the eyes of his compatriots. What the West has done to help the Labor continue pacing in the path that would lead to an agreement? Nothing at all. The EU has been supporting and financing (!) Arafat’s terrorist gang, Arafat, locked in Ramalah, sinking in financial scandals and observing his Fateh losing ground by the fundamentalists of Hamas became more and more violent and absurd so, the coming of Sharon to power was the natural result.
So, what’s the deal with Labor now? I believe that the election of Peretz passes a message that isn’t that obvious for the moment but it will become clearer in the following months. Peretz’ prime concern is to take the control over the rabbis and make the settlers understand that they are not in the position to dictate Israel’s future. Peretz came to give an answer to the question “ Whose country is this?” and I am optimist regarding the answer.
What remains to be seen is something else though that I decided to bring in the discussion hoping that somebody will be interested in addressing the issue.
All of you are aware of my views regarding the Left. Left is by definition useless in the management of a crisis because it exhausts itself in the description of the crisis and always fails to bring a viable plan to address a problem.
So my question goes as follows.
Can we invest our hopes for peace and progress to a socialist-leftist party as the Labor of Amir Peretz or shall we wait for a radical reform of the Right on the principles of western liberalism? Do Ideologies have a role to play in the peace process in the area? For me this is the question that will be answered in the near future. And do you wish me to go a step further? Is Political Liberalism the solution to the existing problem of the quest of a democratic and secular Jewish state?
Please, do note that I am quite aware of the fact that the very core of Liberalism contradicts the concept of the Jewish state. I have an answer to that but I won’t open my cards for the moment because I am interested in reading the opinions of the “usual suspects” on the matter first.
Last edited:
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
When I was fourteen years old, I had a crush on this girl who was a year younger than me. Her name was Julie, she had red hair, the most pale skin with just a hint of freckles, and always wore the most lady-like dresses you could imagine. I was smitten. I used to tease her mercilessly because at that age I hadn’t yet learned to simply tell a girl that I liked her and would like to spend time with her. Teasing her didn’t accomplish what I really wanted, but it did allow me to react with her, to watch her move and to hear her voice.
Lately, I have been thinking of this whenever I read one of CapelDodgers speculations on Israeli politics. It helps me, I think, to understand his motivations in bringing his thoughts to this forum for us, and you, to react to.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Straight in with aspersions on my honesty. How very lawyerly. Of course I know as much as I appear to. It's only your assumption that I don't that leads you to conclusion that I am a master of simulation, ergo I don't have the knowledge. It's called "begging the question".
Economist? Moi? No, nor a philosopher. Sure I know a lot about economics, but I know lots of things. Not the value of money, according to my mother, but other stuff.
Syrupy. How sweet
Nowt wrong with the common cake. I've always believed in the common cake. The occasional meringue is pleasant enough, but somehow unsatisfying.
Were I arrogant I wouldn't care about others' opinion of my intellectual abilities. In fact, if people can't appreciate them that's their failing.
'Tis true.
Well (if you'll excuse a moment's arrogance) duh! But understanding the past and it's trajectory through the present is essential to the trick.
Over half-a century since the First Knesset there's a generational shift. Sharon (and Peres) are the last of the Ashkenazi Founding Fathers, and they are not long for this planet. Tempus Fugit.
(An aside on personality, and personalities are so important in Israeli history: if Peres joins Kadima it'll be a victory of ego over experience, sealing his career as first-choice not-quite-adequate for all seasons.Was that syrupy enough?
)The foundation ambitions are not those of the later generations. Their experience is of Israel as it has been and is, not of theorizing what Israel will be once the job gets done. They are a disparate bunch, descendants of Eastern and Western Ashkenazi, Eastern and North African Mizrahim, Ethiopians and probably others.
And then there are the New Russians of the 90's, no longer disoriented, tongue-tied and assuming that doing the crap-work is transitional. Peretz's Labour speaks to their concerns far more than Peres's Labour. (Which, IMO, is why Peretz saw off Peres and his besuited imps.) A Labour Party of the Histadrut, not against it. Political power as an extension of union power. Lenin would be so proud.
Of course the Histadrut doesn't control the Haganah/IDF as it did in Ben-Gurion's day, but you can't have everything. And, absent a military coup, it may not matter that much. We're not talking Russia in 1917, after all.
This election comes at a crucial time, in many ways. Perhaps uniquely crucial. The Israeli electorate surely appreciates that. And I'm pretty sure that they will elect a transitional government - Kadima and Labour, with Sharon as PM - which will make a final settlement with the Palestinians and only at the next election really consider what Israel is going to be like.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Sad fact is, I was never adolescent, even in my adolescence.
I actually hope that I can get across to people that zionism and Israel are not a given good, as they are presented to most Westerners, that they have nothing to do with the Holocaust, and that the people of Palestine were not terrorists-in-waiting twiddling their thumbs for centuries until European Jews turned up for them to be terroristic to. Or at least to get some people thinking about it. This is not because of in-born anti-Israeli bias. I started from the default pro-Israeli position, while not giving it much thought, until 1967 drew my attention and I started looking into the subject. I quickly learnt that there are questions one is not supposed to ask - a matriarchal background, very scary - in polite company. But there are books. And later there were wider social spheres. My antipathy to zionism developed rapidly, given my existing antipathy to imperialism, nationalism and racism. Not to mention religion - important to Christian zionists, not to Jewish ones. Back in the day, anyway.
I do not have a prejudice against zionism, I have a postjudice. And no, Cleopatra, it isn't all to do with my mother, OK?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
There's a difference between "cloudy views" and not wishing to lecture. Especially when the lecture's accuracy is debatabe.
Jabotinsky cannot be dismissed as a nationalist fanatic. He was a realist, whose position was "If we're going to create a nation these things will be required". His Israel, and Begin's, wasn't based on the Bible, it was based on the requirements of a viable Israeli nation as they saw it - borders on the Sinai, the Eastern Jordanian watershed and the Litani Valley. Very rational, and the same rationality leads me to think that Israel without it isn't viable. His method was laid out in On The Iron Wall - that the people of the region would only permit it if they were forced to.
(Speech to Zionist Conference 1921)
Jabotinsky was always honest and realistic, unlike Weizman and his "some sort of accomodations will be made ..." to a Western audience or Ben-Gurion's "we must evict the Arabs, but it musn't seem to be our idea" to a more local one. Ben-Gurion was Stalin to Jabotinsky's Trotsky, in that he was a better student of Leninism.
You say the Right has collapsed, but there wasn't a politically effective Right, or any serious opposition to Labour hegemony - that's how the system was designed - until the creation of Likud. Likud exploited the anti-establishment Mizrahim vote that secular Ashkenazi, proletariat-oriented Labour had assumed would become just like them automatically, perhaps after a generation or two. They were trading on their Nation-Founding laurels and the obvious superiority of Western ways. Oh dear, how sad. And at a crucial time.
And I'm sure you get in their faces and tell them so, but how do they feel about it? This is my point about the betrayal having happened now. The Sinai betrayal didn't have legs, largely because Sharon wept crocodile tears, wasn't ultimately responsible, and helped set most of the evacuees up in the Gaza Strip. Sharon rode that betrayal wave. It was Barak who withdrew from Southern Lebanon, to Sharon's vocal disgust. Sharon's responsible for the latest one.
This betrayal will fester. The evacuees will form communities very similar to the Palestinian refugee camps, and the young people - who are a high proportion - will be taught to remember the trauma as a fundamental part of their identity. What demons will appear five, ten years down the line?
A one-shot, one-purpose government. A vehicle for Sharon and his ego (not to mention his dynastic ambitions) achieving a final settlement that leaves the pernicious Palestinian Problem a problem for Palestinians. What happens to Israel after that is not his immediate concern.
The politicisation of Hamas is much to be desired, especially as they'll be more eager to knife Islamic Jihad than the Haganah were to knife the Irgun. If Islamic Jihad steps out of line. The best policy for the Palestinians, once a deal is made, is to avoid provocations, make loud noises about what the Israelis are still doing to them, and watch Israel try to deal with itself. While creating a credible, honest, democratic Palestine. Perhaps a time will come when Israel wants to amalgamate with Palestine.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Please, do note that I am quite aware of the fact that the very core of Liberalism contradicts the concept of the Jewish state. I have an answer to that but I won’t open my cards for the moment because I am interested in reading the opinions of the “usual suspects” on the matter first.
If you want opinions, it is polite to not abuse people for offering them?
Ok. These posts are thought provoking, I guess I will be needing a day to absorb them. Mind you,though,Capel Dodger you will address Liberalism,you won't get away with that.
The idea of Peres joining Kadima will make me giggle during the day. I posted a couple of months ago about his interview in "Hard Talk" on BBC. When the journalist asked him how would he feel if Ariel Sharon signed the peace treaty instead of him a grimace of pain appeared on his face, just for some seconds and then the old fox replied :" If it will be for peace,I won't mind at all, I will be the one that will applaud".
Yeah right!
Personalities do matter a lot in Israeli politics,that's an astute observation.
AUP it wasn't a matter of netiquette. I just wished to bring the issue in the discussion without my setting the parameters. I just wish to see how the idea appears to everybody and then reveal my thoughts that are neither secret nor that original.
It's an issue that I have been thinking since this summer. Many times I have felt "desperate" for the whole concept of the "jewish state" only to admit that under the present circumstances it is the only viable solution but I enjoy dreaming the future, otherwise, I wouldn't be interested in politics.
The idea of Peres joining Kadima will make me giggle during the day. I posted a couple of months ago about his interview in "Hard Talk" on BBC. When the journalist asked him how would he feel if Ariel Sharon signed the peace treaty instead of him a grimace of pain appeared on his face, just for some seconds and then the old fox replied :" If it will be for peace,I won't mind at all, I will be the one that will applaud".
Yeah right!
Personalities do matter a lot in Israeli politics,that's an astute observation.
AUP it wasn't a matter of netiquette. I just wished to bring the issue in the discussion without my setting the parameters. I just wish to see how the idea appears to everybody and then reveal my thoughts that are neither secret nor that original.
It's an issue that I have been thinking since this summer. Many times I have felt "desperate" for the whole concept of the "jewish state" only to admit that under the present circumstances it is the only viable solution but I enjoy dreaming the future, otherwise, I wouldn't be interested in politics.
Last edited:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I might be interested in making a comment, but fear it might be too subtle.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
No thanks.
Masked Palestinian gunmen stand out side a polling station for Fatah movement after they close it at the Khan younis camp southern Gaza Strip, November 28, 2005.
Palestinian gunmen, firing in the air, stormed into several polling stations in the Gaza Strip on Monday where President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party was holding primary elections and forced them to close, witnesses said.
REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
The occupation is over in Gaza, not a zionist, a jew or Israeli to be seen Capel, all the illegal zionist settlements are gone...destroyed. Gaza is free! And look what it gets you.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
You have a right to make whatever comment you think appropriate.
You don't have a right to forbid others from forming opinions about you based on the comments you make.
Just like the rest of us.
Is that it? This is democracy in action in the Middle East. much-trumpeted for many years as the free-speech democratic secular free-market can-do exemplar for the New Middle Eastern Order, and I get blanked?
The obvious reason, CD, is that usually, people try to get their views about a subject--in this case, israel--from a source that doesn't demonstrate both hatered and ignorance of it in virtually every post.
Just a thought.
The obvious reason, CD, is that usually, people try to get their views about a subject--in this case, israel--from a source that doesn't demonstrate both hatered and ignorance of it in virtually every post.
Just a thought.