Israel

[GMantis]

You know of another reason for the sympathy of the Palestinians, other than the massive civilian casualties, especially in comparison with Israel, they have suffered in this and other wars?

They've suffered more civilian casualties because the terrorists deliberately insert themselves in densely populated areas.  Israel has done so much to minimize civilian casualties among the Palestinians; but you don't care, you'll just continue blaming Israel no matter what they do.

The Gaza strip is extremely densely populated. There was no way for Israel to avoid inflicting (nor were they that bothered, as you claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8128210.stm) massive civilian casualties with the means used in the war.

[Senator Ben]

The Gaza strip is extremely densely populated. There was no way for Israel to avoid inflicting (nor were they that bothered, as you claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8128210.stm) massive civilian casualties with the means used in the war.

Amnesty International has consistently applied a different standard to Israel than toher nations.  It always looks to blame Israel, regardless of the facts.  Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties, despite what some groups will say.

[GMantis]

The Gaza strip is extremely densely populated. There was no way for Israel to avoid inflicting (nor were they that bothered, as you claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8128210.stm) massive civilian casualties with the means used in the war.

Amnesty International has consistently applied a different standard to Israel than toher nations.  It always looks to blame Israel, regardless of the facts.  Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties, despite what some groups will say.

Any evidence to back up these claims?

[Χahar]

The Gaza strip is extremely densely populated. There was no way for Israel to avoid inflicting (nor were they that bothered, as you claim: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8128210.stm) massive civilian casualties with the means used in the war.

Amnesty International has consistently applied a different standard to Israel than toher nations.  It always looks to blame Israel, regardless of the facts.  Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties, despite what some groups will say.

Any evidence to back up these claims?

Avigdor Lieberman said so.

[dead0man]

Life improving in the West Bank.link

Ever since the collapse of the Oslo peace accords in 2000, and the horror-show violence that followed, there has been only one thing to say about the West Bank: Nothing ever changes here, except for the worst. That is just not the case anymore — much to my surprise.

For Palestinians, long trapped between burgeoning Israeli settlements and an Israeli occupation army, subject to lawlessness in their own cities and the fecklessness of their own political leadership, life has clearly started to improve a bit, thanks to a new virtuous cycle: improved Palestinian policing that has led to more Palestinian investment and trade that has led to the Israeli Army dismantling more checkpoints in the West Bank that has led to more Palestinian travel and commerce.

Because the West Bank today is largely hidden from Israelis by a wall, Israelis are just starting to learn from their own press what is going on there. On July 31, many Israelis were no doubt surprised to read this quote in the Maariv daily from Omar Hashim, deputy chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Nablus, the commercial center of the West Bank: “Traders here are satisfied,” said Hashim. “Their sales are rising. They feel that life is returning to normal. There is a strong sense of optimism.”

Make no mistake: Palestinians still want the Israeli occupation to end, and their own state to emerge, tomorrow. That is not going to happen. But for the first time since Oslo, there is an economic-security dynamic emerging on the ground in the West Bank that has the potential — the potential — to give the post-Yasir Arafat Palestinians another chance to build the sort of self-governing authority, army and economy that are prerequisites for securing their own independent state. A Palestinian peace partner for Israel may be taking shape again.

The key to this rebirth was the recruitment, training and deployment of four battalions of new Palestinian National Security Forces — a move spearheaded by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority. Trained in Jordan in a program paid for by the U.S., three of these battalions have fanned out since May 2008 and brought order to the major Palestinian towns: Nablus, Jericho, Hebron, Ramallah, Jenin and Bethlehem.

These N.S.F. troops, who replaced either Israeli soldiers or Palestinian gangs, have been warmly received by the locals. Recently, N.S.F. forces wiped out a Hamas cell in Qalqilya, and took losses themselves. The death of the Hamas fighters drew nary a peep, but a memorial service for the N.S.F. soldiers killed drew thousands of people. For the first time, I’ve heard top Israeli military officers say these new Palestinian troops are professional and for real.

The Israeli Army’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, has backed that up by taking down roughly two-thirds of the 41 manned checkpoints Israel set up around the West Bank, many since 2000, to stifle Palestinian suicide bombers. Those checkpoints — where Palestinians often had to wait for two hours to just pass from one city to the next and often could not drive their own cars through but had to go from cab to cab — choked Palestinian commerce. Israel is also again letting Israeli Arabs drive their own cars into the West Bank on Saturdays to shop.

“You can feel the movement,” said Olfat Hammad, the associate director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, who lives in Nablus and works in Ramallah. “It is not a burden anymore to move around to Ramallah for business meetings and social meetings.” Nablus recently opened its first multiplex, “Cinema City,” as well as a multistory furniture mart designed to cater to Israelis. Ramallah’s real estate prices have skyrocketed.

“I have had a 70 percent increase in sales,” Maariv quoted a Nablus shoe store owner as saying. “People are coming from the villages nearby, and from other cities in the West Bank and from Israel.”

But men and women do not live by shoe sales alone. The only way the Palestinian leadership running this show can maintain its legitimacy is if it is eventually given political authority, not just policing powers, over the West Bank — or at least a map that indicates they are on a pathway there.

“Our people need to see we are governing ourselves and are not simply subcontractors for Israeli security,” Prime Minister Fayyad told me. Khalil Shikaki, a leading Palestinian pollster, added that Abbas and Fayyad want “to be seen as building a Palestinian state — not security without a state.” That is why “there has to be political progress alongside the security progress. Without it, it hurts them very much.”

America must nurture this virtuous cycle: more money to train credible Palestinian troops, more encouragement for Israel’s risk-taking in eliminating checkpoints, more Palestinian economic growth and quicker negotiations on the contours of a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Hamas and Gaza can join later. Don’t wait for them. If we build it, they will come.

Can we at least all agree that this is a good thing?

[So the Heroes Fall]

Why not make the good thing better and kick the settlers out?

[CarolinaHusky]

I very well may be the first anti-Zionist conservative here. Funny.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Actually, there are a lot.

[danny]

I very well may be the first anti-Zionist conservative here. Funny.

bono, stark

[So the Heroes Fall]

DWTL was the first who came to mind for me.

[Senator Ben]

DWTL was the first who came to mind for me.

Same.  I don't consider Stark a conservative, though.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

http://www.france24.com/en/20091102-religious-zionist-ranks-army-israel-critics

[Scam of God]

I very well may be the first anti-Zionist conservative here. Funny.

I'm an anti-Zionist libertarian, though not of the right-libertarian stripe.

[Јas]

Two-state solution, R.I.P. - Foreign Policy

Yesterday the Israeli Knesset voted 65-33 to approve the so-called referendum law, which requires a national referendum on any subsequent withdrawal from the Occupied Territories.

According to Israeli journalist Dimi Reider, the new law:
"Conditions any Israeli withdrawal from any of its territory -- into which Israel, alone in the world, includes the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem -- on passing a nation-wide referendum. To overrule the law, the Knesset would need a privileged majority of 80 out of 120 parliamentarians."

In other words, you can kiss the two-state solution good-bye.

[danny]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

[Thomas216]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

You don't even need a majority, a plurality will do. 20 MK can abolish the law tomorrow if they want to. the truth is that this law has a symbolic meaning and not much more, any PM who'll want to to retreat from any part of the state of Israel will just abolish the law in a simple vote, no need for an absolute majority.

[danny]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

You don't even need a majority, a plurality will do. 20 MK can abolish the law tomorrow if they want to. the truth is that this law has a symbolic meaning and not much more, any PM who'll want to to retreat from any part of the state of Israel will just abolish the law in a simple vote, no need for an absolute majority.

Yes, I should have been more clear I meant the majority of voting MKs.

[Χahar]

Parliamentary supremacy is an astoundingly bad idea.

[Јas]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

You don't even need a majority, a plurality will do. 20 MK can abolish the law tomorrow if they want to. the truth is that this law has a symbolic meaning and not much more, any PM who'll want to to retreat from any part of the state of Israel will just abolish the law in a simple vote, no need for an absolute majority.

Yes, I should have been more clear I meant the majority of voting MKs.

The quote from the article above states that a two-thirds supermajority would be required to overrule the law - is it incorrect?

[danny]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

You don't even need a majority, a plurality will do. 20 MK can abolish the law tomorrow if they want to. the truth is that this law has a symbolic meaning and not much more, any PM who'll want to to retreat from any part of the state of Israel will just abolish the law in a simple vote, no need for an absolute majority.

Yes, I should have been more clear I meant the majority of voting MKs.

The quote from the article above states that a two-thirds supermajority would be required to overrule the law - is it incorrect?

As long as the law is in place you would need a supermajority to give away territory without a referendum. However, nothing prevents a normal plurality from getting rid of the law itself.

[GMantis]

It's interesting that the writer takes it as a given that the government isn't representative of the people and that the majority are to the right of the government.

Of course, if there is a majority for an agreement, the same majority could simply get rid of this law first to avoid a referendum.

The author probably thinks that the people would be less malleable to foreign pressure than the government, which is surprising considering that this is the Israeli government he's talking about.
And no doubt the law could be easily removed, but can there be an Israeli government which could survive such an action?

[Thomas216]

The current government could and pretty much any Likud government could because of the Left (left's? lefts?) automatic support for such a move. We can't tell what the situation will be like years from now when the need for it will arise but most chances are that there will be no referendum if the government reach an agreement. You should also remember how forgiving the Israeli electorate is, just look at Netanyahu, Barak, Sharon, Rabin and many others. It's safe to say the government will not suffer much by avoiding a referendum.

[danny]

A poll taken on sunday, second number is the change from the 2009 election:

Likud: 32  +5
Kadima: -2
Yisrael Beiteinu (Lieberman): 18 +3
Arab parties: 10 -1
Shas: 9 -2
Avoda: 8 -5
UTJ: 5 0
Ichud Leumi: 4 0
Jewish home: 3 0
Centrist party headed by Yair Lapid: 3 new
Meretz: 2 -1

right: 71 +6
left-centre-Arabs: 49 -6

current governing coalition: 75 +1

link: http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/2687/1764270/892325/5/@@/media

[Χahar]

I don't understand why Labor continues to attempt to be a right-wing party. It's not working.

[danny]

I don't understand why Labor continues to attempt to be a right-wing party. It's not working.

They're not trying to be a right wing party they're in the coalition because Barak cares more about being defence minister than how many votes his party get next election, and the union wants to influence the government on stuff it cares about (and doesn't care about the peace process and the Palestinians).