the USA, Israel, and national interest

Many xposts.

Right, they filed it. But Kadima signed on. That's how it passed.

Well fuck them in the face for doing so. What's your point?

That it wasn't crazy right-wing fanatics who signed onto this bill? Like you said earlier?

No, I said very specifically that the source of the claim that the parties "called for the destruction of Israel" was a motion that was filed by religious Jewish right wing parties.

Ok, I'm just saying that Kadima signed onto that motion. :/

Which sucks. But your point is good for Israel for allowing those parties in the first place?

So clearly it isn't just the looney toons that believe it. But anyway, I'm dropping this issue until I find a source for Balad. I stand by my initial reaction that it's fucked up. But it's also pretty crazy that Balad exists in the first place.

yes it is pretty crazy that a party like this would exist:

Balad is an Arab nationalist political party,[3][4] whose stated purpose is the 'struggle to transform the state of Israel into a democracy for all its citizens, irrespective of national or ethnic identity.'[5] Balad also demands that the state of Israel recognize Palestinian Arabs as a national minority, entitled to all rights that come with that status including autonomy in education, culture and media.[5]

Uhhhhhh, yes, allowing nationalist parties representation in parliament is hardly unusual

the rabbi teaching my class believes in a two-state solution and says, based on how both the israelis and palestinians are treated by the rest of the middle east, he thinks if the two states could ever peacefully co-exist they might, in the distant future, have a stronger bond than any other two nations in the region. he admits this is based entirely on hope and on his notion that they would recognize that they have more qualities in common than not in common.

Oh plz. They are hardly a beacon of Democracy. Give me a break. How about the connections between Hezbollah and Balad? Weren't they under investigation for recruiting to Hezbollah a few years ago?

You'll have heard of Sinn Fein?

to be "under investigation"

to be accused of "having connections"

to be any kind of legit Arab party in Israel without some kind of ties to Hamas...

Hamas != Hezbollah

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.

In the 2006 elections Balad won three seats, which were taken by Bishara, Taha, and Zahalka. However, more controversy was to come when all three visited Syria in September 2006. They returned to Israel on 16 September, saying they plan to return to Syria again "if necessary." A police investigation will be opened against them as well. Member of Knesset Azmi Bishara, head of the Balad party, told: "Israel won't tell us with which Arabs we can forge ties."[11]

On April 22, 2007, Bishara resigned from the Knesset via the Israeli Embassy in Cairo following a police investigation into his alleged assistance of Lebanon during its war against Israel,[12] and various other criminal charges including money laundering. He was said to be "considering staying abroad because he feared a long term jail sentence and an end to his political career."[13] Bishara was replaced in the Knesset by Said Nafa.

On January 12, 2009, Balad was disqualified from the 2009 Israeli elections by the Central Elections Committee by a vote of 26 to three, with one abstention. It was disqualified on grounds that it does not recognize the State of Israel and calls for armed conflict against it. Zahalka argued that the decision was related to Operation Cast Lead, and said that he is not surprised by it "because the vote was taken for political motives due to the war atmosphere... The committee members sought to increase their popularity at our expense on the backdrop of the elections".[1]

None of the Jewish political parties in Knesset have any known ties to extremists, of course.

XP Is that from the Wiki page?

Yeah.

I have no idea how accurate it is but, given its Wikipedia, I'm not holding my breath.

Ok. I wanted some actual news stories. I actually started translating the archive.org of the Balad webpage (since it appears to be down).

Also, of course there are Israeli knesset members with radical right-wing ties. But I'm not trying to say the Israelis are the good guys and the Palestinians are the bad guys. I'm just saying that the Palestinians aren't these righteous do-gooders just trying to help and Israel aren't these cliched, dark laughter villains.

dude, youre saying that its "crazy" that balad be allowed to exist

m just saying that the Palestinians aren't these righteous do-gooders just trying to help and Israel aren't these cliched, dark laughter villains.

― Mordy, Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:21 PM (10 seconds ago) Bookmark

I think most people on the thread accept that the situation is not black-and-white. How does that justify banning political parties or indiscriminately bombing civilian areas?

Yeah, I'm saying it's surprising that Israel, which is run by the Israelis, would allow that party to exist considering their platform and what they've been associated with. I think it's good crazy, not bad crazy. But it's still totally surprising.

indiscriminately bombing civilian areas?

Huh?

"Israel, which is run by the Israelis"

Yeah, I'm saying it's surprising that Israel, which is run by the Israelis, would allow that party to exist considering their platform and what they've been associated with. I think it's good crazy, not bad crazy. But it's still totally surprising.

Why is it surprising? It's supposed to be a secular, Western democracy, isn't it?

okay ppl disingenuousness as a rhetorical technique is my steez, get yr own

(^_^)

How does that justify banning political parties or indiscriminately bombing civilian areas?

― Hurting 2

Except don't answer that second part, Mordy, cuz GAH! Enough with that.

suggest banning political parties

Having done a bit of digging, allegations against Balad reps seem pretty thin. Words are said to have been uttered in Syria and Lebanon, but free-speech rights were subsequently defended by Israel's Supreme Court.

In the interests of trying to avoid the discussion becoming any more heated than it will inevitably get, let's assume that "Israel, which is run by Israelis" was a simple slip. However, Mordy, given that you've said that the difference between acceptable and unacceptable criticism of Israel is defined by content, it might be useful to establish exactly which positions you hold, which you can agree to disagree on and which you can't, with regard to specific issues. Take the Jewish character of Israel.

To some, for Israel to be defined as a Jewish state is non-negotiable, a necessary protection. To others, to have the state defined in this way prevents the country from ever being truly egalitarian, democratic or secular, and inevitably leads to a two-tier society in which Arab Israelis are treated as second-class citizens or no even recognised as Israelis at all. I sort of think that everybody who wants to discuss Israel/Palestine has to know where they stand on an issue like this, and be clear about the ramifications (such as the Law of Return and its demographic implications).

it might be useful to establish exactly which positions you hold,

Oh dude.

On a related note: I think I'm done with this thread for now.

by the 24th century I predict Federation-Klingon-like coexistence.

To some, for Israel to be defined as a Jewish state is non-negotiable, a necessary protection. To others, to have the state defined in this way prevents the country from ever being truly egalitarian, democratic or secular, and inevitably leads to a two-tier society in which Arab Israelis are treated as second-class citizens or no even recognised as Israelis at all. I sort of think that everybody who wants to discuss Israel/Palestine has to know where they stand on an issue like this, and be clear about the ramifications (such as the Law of Return and its demographic implications).

― Flyboy, Tuesday, January 13, 2009 8:50 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this would make an interesting thread. i think israel does okay in the 'egalitarian, democratic or secular' stakes, compared with many western countries, most of whose constitutions and laws are not exactly lacking in foundational ethnic and religious biases, and some of which were founded on genocide and expulsions in the quite recent past. there is a slight whiff of hypocrisy in holding israel to a standard no other country could meet.

Then again, I don't think it's at all hypocritical to critique Israel's current stance with regard institutional ethnic and religious biases, especially to the extend that folks is getting bombed. I mean, I don't know of another Western country that's so explicitly dedicated to a single ethnic/religious group - even at the expense of others.

maybe they should mix it up a little, go after the sikhs?

Well, there would be hypocrisy there if that was what was being said, but I find that to be an accusation voiced more often than it can be convincingly demonstrated. For example, I have repeatedly encountered the idea that Israel should not be criticised for its response to rocket attacks since no other country would react with any more restraint. But whatever else you might say about the so-called "usual suspect" critics of Israeli military action in the US and UK, whether protestors or published writers, there is a demonstrable overlap with those who opposed US & UK military action after 9/11 and the London Underground bombing.

Equally, I wouldn't support criticisms of the extent to which Israel is egalitarian, democratic etc. that are based on lionizing US/UK/European democracy. The argument that goes "We should support Israel because they are a beacon of progressive Western attitudes like ours in the Middle East" is based on two misconceptions, not one.

Incidentally, I strongly recommend former IDF member Seth Freedman as an even-handed commentator on Israel - clearly not a Hamas apologist, or someone who is not directly invested.

(And I'm genuinely bemused as to what Mordy's "Oh dude" is about - if the Law of Return etc. has been discussed upthread and I missed it, I apologise and will review.)

there is a demonstrable overlap with those who opposed US & UK military action after 9/11 and the London Underground bombing.

I'm...wait, what? Is that confusing to anyone else?

It's confusing without the first half:

But whatever else you might say about the so-called "usual suspect" critics of Israeli military action in the US and UK, whether protestors or published writers, there is a demonstrable overlap with those who opposed US & UK military action after 9/11 and the London Underground bombing.

IOW, there is overlap between the ppl criticizing Israel for military action and the ppl opposed to US military action after 9/11 and the ppl opposed to UK military action after the Underground bombing.

I don't think we've discussed it above. My position on it is that I'm pro having an explicitly Jewish, though not necessarily religious, country in the world. That's one of the reasons I'm pro a two State solution. (I believe that if we reach a historical - or ahistorical - moment where a one State solution would be viable, it would be a good thing to have, but I think that's a messianic moment.) So I'm not in favor of the Law of Return.

I didn't "Oh dude," about your question about Israel as a Jewish State. More that I thought my opinions and beliefs were pretty laid out and obvious. I'm very pro-Israel; I've visited there numerous times and have family members (at the moment two brothers and a sister-in-law) living there. Additionally I have a third brother who wants to join the Israeli army in February. At the same time, I'm critical of Israel's current excursion into Gaza (and I was very against their recent invasion into Lebanon). So I "Oh dude'd" because it sounded like you were suggesting I search my feelings and discover what I believe about Israel. I've been dealing with Israel intimately since I was a child - so it's not like I haven't thought these things through.

(And I don't intend to reenter the discussion right now, but I wanted to answer you directly since you were confused about my earlier response.)

Honestly, I'd find it hard not to study Jewish history (I've taken Classical, Medieval and Modern Jewish history courses throughout undergrad) and not be in favor of a Jewish State.

For example, I have repeatedly encountered the idea that Israel should not be criticised for its response to rocket attacks since no other country would react with any more restraint.

― Flyboy

Well, I've said that, because I wouldn't expect any other country to react with more restraint, outraged, one-sided, butthurt criticisms of Israeli "war-crimes" seem intellectually lazy to me. But I guess that's a different kinda thing.

(Find it hard to study and not be in favor* rather)

Flyboy: I have repeatedly encountered the idea that Israel should not be criticised for its response to rocket attacks since no other country would react with any more restraint. But whatever else you might say about the so-called "usual suspect" critics of Israeli military action in the US and UK, whether protestors or published writers, there is a demonstrable overlap with those who opposed US & UK military action after 9/11 and the London Underground bombing.

don't know what you're saying here. the two things -- frequent rocket attacks and one-off terrorist bombings -- are quite different. but what relevance has that overlap? some of those critics are more sympathetic than others -- the StWC are wholly reprehsnsible imo. but this is a non-sequitur isn't it?

there's no parallel i can think of that isn't stupid, but anyway were many people proposing military action after 7/7? it must have passed me by; i suppose there were people saying we should stop fighting the wars we have etc etc. though i marched in 2003 there is something a bit retarded about listening to 17-y-o retard bombers, though i'm willing to admit this is just pique on my part.

Equally, I wouldn't support criticisms of the extent to which Israel is egalitarian, democratic etc. that are based on lionizing US/UK/European democracy. The argument that goes "We should support Israel because they are a beacon of progressive Western attitudes like ours in the Middle East" is based on two misconceptions, not one.

― Flyboy, Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:28 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ok i kind of feel you there but, again, US/UK/European democracy, though imperfect, is preferable to other immediately existing alternatives. it's kind of the easiest argument ever to say 'well, under my utopian scheme that doesn't exist anywhere we wouldn't have these problems', which is what i'm inferring from your post.

I thought my opinions and beliefs were pretty laid out and obvious. I'm very pro-Israel (etc)

I think there's a lot of scope for a range of opinions on specific issues within the boundary of being "very pro-Israel"! For example, many who are pro-Israel are also in favor of the Law of Return, while you're not (unless you thought I was talking about Palestinian right to return).