Poll: Over half of Egypt wants end to Israel peace

gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
edited April 2011 in A Moving Train
what would happen if the peace treaty was scrapped? what would that mean for the region? i think if it were to be scrapped that would be one less ally in the region for israel, and the US would have to have a presence in the region for even longer. i think the writing might soon be on the wall that israel must end it's subjugation of the palestinians.


Poll: Over half of Egypt wants end to Israel peace


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42754523/ns ... tn_africa/

CAIRO — More than half of all Egyptians would like to see the 1979 peace treaty with Israel annulled, according to results of a poll conducted by the U.S.-based Pew Research Center released Monday.

The poll highlights the deep unpopularity of the three-decade-old treaty, which is central to U.S. policy in the region and was scrupulously adhered to by former President Hosni Mubarak, until his Feb. 11 ouster.

The poll also revealed that most Egyptians are optimistic about where the country is headed following the 18-day popular uprising that brought down the president, and they look forward to greater democracy in their country.

The fall of Egypt's autocratic leader and the rise of a more democratic system, however, could threaten relations with neighboring Israel.

According to the poll results, only 36 percent of Egyptians are in favor of maintaining the treaty, compared with 54 percent who would like to see it scrapped.

Despite the decades of peace and limited trade between the two countries, most Egyptian view the Israelis poorly, largely because of perceptions that they mistreat the Palestinians.

Opinions varied according to income, with 60 percent of lower income Egyptians supporting the treaty's cancellation while only 45 percent of the wealthier classes thinking it should be done away with.

Only 40 percent of Egyptians with a college education felt the treaty should be scrapped, as well.

The poll, based on interviews with 1,000 Egyptians around the country, was conducted between March 24 and April 7 as part of the Spring 2011 Pew Global Attitudes survey held in 22 countries.

The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The country's youth-led pro-democracy movement, which rocked Egypt and reworked the political environment, had a dramatic effect on people's attitudes. The polls show a major rise in optimism and changing of national priorities.

In 2007, Egyptian were evenly split over which was more important, a strong leader or democracy, but in the recent poll 64 percent rated democracy higher.

Egyptians remained quite split on just who they wanted to lead them as new political forces emerge after the decades of repression. In September, elections will be held for a new parliament after the one overwhelmingly dominated by Mubarak's ruling party was dissolved.

The conservative Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and the largely secular April 6 movement — two groups closely involved in the uprising, had the highest approval ratings in society, with over 70 percent seeing them in a very or somewhat favorable light.

People also overwhelmingly approved of the army, which forced out Mubarak and is currently in the control of the country.

Of those whose names have been put forward as possible candidates for the upcoming November presidential elections, former Arab League head Amr Moussa was the most popular, with 89 percent giving him a very or somewhat favorable rating.

Former presidential candidate Ayman Nour trailed with a 70 percent rating while Nobel Prize Laureate and reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei only had 57 percent rating.

The United States continued to garner low approval ratings, with only 20 percent of Egyptians seeing it in a positive light, up from 17 percent in 2010.

Only 15 percent of those interviewed thought Egypt should have closer relations with the U.S. — as opposed to 43 percent who though the two countries could use some distance.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Ahhhh... smell that? It's called, 'Democracy in The Middle East' by Bush/Cheney.
    I remember hearing that this will be the Bush Legacy... bringing Democracy to the Middle East. A good thing? Well, it depends... if you live in a country where the populous hates American Economic Imperialism in your country and you want other people who hate American Economic Imperialism in your country to be in charge... instead of a very wealthy president for life who caters to Washington for the money that fills his personal coffers... then, yeah... it's a very good thing.
    So, I guess you just have to see it from another point of view... to get the whole picture.
    ...
    That smell... like the burning of a kerosene soaked polyester American flag over a three alarm structure fire at a McDonalds in Cairo? Spreading Democracy in The Middle East.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    here is another example of how things will change in egypt once democracy is in place.... the right wingers in the US are going to flip when they read this...

    Poll: Most Egyptians want Quran as source of laws
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110426/ap_ ... egypt_poll

    CAIRO – A majority of Egyptians believe laws in their country should observe the teachings of Islam's holy book, the Quran, according to the results of an opinion poll by a U.S.-based research center.

    The results also show that Egyptians, who have shifted toward religious conservatism over the past 40 or so years, are open to the inclusion of religious parties in future governments. Only a minority, however, sympathize with fundamentalist religious parties, according to the results.

    Overall, the results of the poll paint a picture of Egyptians as a people who prefer religious moderation over extremism and prize democratic values even if they come at the risk of some political instability.

    The poll results were released late Monday and come five months ahead of legislative elections, the first since the February ouster of longtime authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak.

    Islamic parties are expected to make a significant showing in the crucial vote, with 50 percent of people saying it was "very important" for religious parties to be part of a future government and as much 37 percent have a "very favorable" view of the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's largest and best organized Islamic group.

    Another 62 percent of Egyptians believe laws in their country should strictly follow the teachings of the Quran, though 27 percent thought it was enough that the laws reflect Islam's general values and principles.

    The poll, based on interviews with 1,000 Egyptians, was conducted by the Pew Research Center between March 24 and April 7. Its margin of error was plus or minus 4 percent.

    Its results gauge the mood in Egypt at a time when the country's future is wide open after an end to 29 years of rule by Mubarak — a period defined for many by political suppression, corruption and wide socio-economic disparities.

    Mubarak's departure in the face of a popular, 18-day uprising will now give Egyptians unprecedented freedom to choose their future government as well as give new opportunities to political and social forces that have long been kept under wraps.

    Islamic groups long suppressed under Mubarak are now free to operate publicly and plan to contest the September vote, including some advocating a militant interpretation of Islam's teachings and the creation of a state run by Islamic law.

    In a result that doesn't bode well for the country's lingering sectarian issues, the poll showed that only 36 percent of those questioned believe it is "very important" for Christians and other minorities to freely practice their religions, suggesting the influence of these militant groups, who have incited hatred of the country's 10 percent Christian minority.

    Post-Mubarak Egypt also suffers from a security vacuum that has led to a dramatic surge in crime. Economic problems are also deepening and the country has had to borrow from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to balance its books since the political upheavals of the past three months have disrupted productivity, scared away tourists and hit exports.

    The poll results also showed that more than half of all Egyptians would like to see the 1979 peace agreement with Israel annulled, highlighting the deep unpopularity of the treaty, which is central to U.S. policy in the region and was scrupulously adhered to by Mubarak.

    More than anything else, however, the youth-led pro-democracy movement, which reworked the political environment, dramatically improved people's attitudes. The polls show a major rise in optimism and changing of national priorities.

    In 2007, Egyptian were evenly split over which was more important, a strong leader or democracy, but in the recent poll, 64 percent rated democracy higher.

    Of those whose names have been put forward as possible candidates for the presidential elections late this year, former Arab League head Amr Moussa was the most popular, with 89 percent giving him a very or somewhat favorable rating.

    Former presidential candidate Ayman Nour trailed with a 70 percent rating while Nobel Prize Laureate and reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei only had 57 percent rating.

    The United States, Egypt's strongest foreign backer since the mid-1970s, continued to garner low approval ratings, with only 20 percent of Egyptians seeing it in a positive light, up from 17 percent in 2010.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Maybe the US should scrape their peace treaties with Canada and Mexico too.

    Wait, that doesn't make any sense ...
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Jason P wrote:
    Maybe the US should scrape their peace treaties with Canada and Mexico too.

    Wait, that doesn't make any sense ...
    could it be possible that mubarek was governing against his people'e wishes for the last 29 years for upholding that clearly unpopular peace treaty? the people AND the military threw his ass out of there and now that democracy is taking hold they will govern themselves the way they want to govern themselves. if that treaty gets sacked you can bet that the US will have a permanent and escalated presence in the region to protect israel. take that one to the bank.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • dimitrispearljamdimitrispearljam Posts: 139,721
    war is the worst solution...ALWAYS
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Jason P wrote:
    Maybe the US should scrape their peace treaties with Canada and Mexico too.

    Wait, that doesn't make any sense ...
    could it be possible that mubarek was governing against his people'e wishes for the last 29 years for upholding that clearly unpopular peace treaty? the people AND the military threw his ass out of there and now that democracy is taking hold they will govern themselves the way they want to govern themselves. if that treaty gets sacked you can bet that the US will have a permanent and escalated presence in the region to protect israel. take that one to the bank.
    Well, they could end a peace treaty, although what would be the positive aspect of that? And they could shun the U.S., although what would be the positive aspect of that? They would lose over $2 billion dollars a year in assistance from the U.S. and they, uhh .... wait, I'm starting to get on board with the Egyptian people on this! This is a brilliant idea!

    I would hope that they elect officials that are open to peace and looking for ways to stimulate their economy. Breaking peace treaties and ending relations with the U.S. don't seem to be the best way to start. But if they do, so be it. One less country that our tax dollars go to support. I just don't want anybody in Europe or Africa looking to the imperialistic American pigs for help in the future.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Jason P wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    Maybe the US should scrape their peace treaties with Canada and Mexico too.

    Wait, that doesn't make any sense ...
    could it be possible that mubarek was governing against his people'e wishes for the last 29 years for upholding that clearly unpopular peace treaty? the people AND the military threw his ass out of there and now that democracy is taking hold they will govern themselves the way they want to govern themselves. if that treaty gets sacked you can bet that the US will have a permanent and escalated presence in the region to protect israel. take that one to the bank.
    Well, they could end a peace treaty, although what would be the positive aspect of that? And they could shun the U.S., although what would be the positive aspect of that? They would lose over $2 billion dollars a year in assistance from the U.S. and they, uhh .... wait, I'm starting to get on board with the Egyptian people on this! This is a brilliant idea!

    I would hope that they elect officials that are open to peace and looking for ways to stimulate their economy. Breaking peace treaties and ending relations with the U.S. don't seem to be the best way to start. But if they do, so be it. One less country that our tax dollars go to support. I just don't want anybody in Europe or Africa looking to the imperialistic American pigs for help in the future.
    wanna bet we increase our $3.5 billion to israel if that treaty is abandoned? so our tax dollars will continue to go to that region no matter what happens....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • What about Egypts subjugation of the Palestinians on their side of the wall? Dont be such a naive Liberal. The Palestinians are and have always been the political football for oppressive Arab regimes to foment hate against Israel and divert them from their own abuse of their people. Unlike you I am hoping for a more tolerant Arab world to evolve out of this. One that respects life, liberty and freedom. Why would Egypt fight Israel?? Israel gave them the Sinai and control of the Suez. Whats left to fight over? Your hatred of Israel?
  • Jason P wrote:
    Maybe the US should scrape their peace treaties with Canada and Mexico too.

    Wait, that doesn't make any sense ...
    could it be possible that mubarek was governing against his people'e wishes for the last 29 years for upholding that clearly unpopular peace treaty? the people AND the military threw his ass out of there and now that democracy is taking hold they will govern themselves the way they want to govern themselves. if that treaty gets sacked you can bet that the US will have a permanent and escalated presence in the region to protect israel. take that one to the bank.

    Not so much
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    edited April 2011
    What about Egypts subjugation of the Palestinians on their side of the wall? Dont be such a naive Liberal. The Palestinians are and have always been the political football for oppressive Arab regimes to foment hate against Israel and divert them from their own abuse of their people. Unlike you I am hoping for a more tolerant Arab world to evolve out of this. One that respects life, liberty and freedom. Why would Egypt fight Israel?? Israel gave them the Sinai and control of the Suez. Whats left to fight over? Your hatred of Israel?
    i am not excusing egypt's treatment of the palestinians. don't you think mubarek's leadership had something to do with how the palestinians were treated??? the article i posted talked of how a majority of egyptians want to end the treaty with israel.

    don't ask me why egypt would want to fight israel. ask those in the poll that said that they want to end the peace treaty. i am just reporting what was in the news. and if that treaty ends, my country would have to keep more of a force in the region because israel will have lost an ally there.

    and no i do not hate israel. i take issue with some of the policies of the israeli government, just as i take issue with policies of my own goverment. as i am free to do so.

    and before you accuse me of hating israel again, i suggest you review my posts on the matter.
    Post edited by gimmesometruth27 on
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Jason P wrote:
    Maybe the US should scrape their peace treaties with Canada and Mexico too.

    Wait, that doesn't make any sense ...
    could it be possible that mubarek was governing against his people'e wishes for the last 29 years for upholding that clearly unpopular peace treaty? the people AND the military threw his ass out of there and now that democracy is taking hold they will govern themselves the way they want to govern themselves. if that treaty gets sacked you can bet that the US will have a permanent and escalated presence in the region to protect israel. take that one to the bank.

    Not so much
    not so much what? i don't get what you are trying to say.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • What about Egypts subjugation of the Palestinians on their side of the wall? Dont be such a naive Liberal. The Palestinians are and have always been the political football for oppressive Arab regimes to foment hate against Israel and divert them from their own abuse of their people. Unlike you I am hoping for a more tolerant Arab world to evolve out of this. One that respects life, liberty and freedom. Why would Egypt fight Israel?? Israel gave them the Sinai and control of the Suez. Whats left to fight over? Your hatred of Israel?
    i am not excusing egypt's treatment of the palestinians. don't you think mubarek's leadership had something to do with how the palestinians were treated??? the article i posted talked of how a majority of egyptians want to end the treaty with israel.

    don't ask me why egypt would want to fight israel. ask those in the poll that said that they want to end the peace treaty. i am just reporting what was in the news. and if that treaty ends, my country would have to keep more of a force in the region because israel will have lost an ally there.

    and no i do not hate israel. i take issue with some of the policies of the israeli government, just as i take issue with policies of my own goverment. as i am free to do so.

    and before you accuse me of hating israel again, i suggest you review my posts on the matter.

    Fair enough. No I didnt read your article. I dont believe everything I read in the newspaper. Anyones newspaper. I can tell you this because I have spent some time in the region. The average man in the street in places like Egypt hates not just Israel but all Jews. The governments in these repressive governments seem to have taken a page from Hitler's playbook in using anti semitism to divert attention from their own dictatorial fuck headedness. I dont doubt that Egyptians in large number would poll to drop the treaty with Israel. Its part of the culture to hate Israel. But if you ask people why, they really dont know. My point was simply that if Israel is to be destabilized it wont be from Egypt. They could give a shit about the Palestinians and not a single war that was fought in the region was fought about the Palestinians. Egypt has a gate on their side of the Gaza Strip just like Israel does.

    Israels wars with Egypt were fought over real estate. Period. I was simply reminding you that the real estate issues are resolved. Why would Egypt of all countries now want a fight with Israel? Makes zero sense.
  • And yes, Mubarak could give a crap about the Palestinians too. Just like the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Iraqis, etc. Tiny Kuwait oil money alone could easily turn the Gaza Strip into the Las Vegas Strip. With all the money in the oil producing countries, including Iran, why arent those countries spending money to build infrastructure instead of sending boatloads of RPGS?
  • Not so much[/quote]
    not so much what? i don't get what you are trying to say.[/quote]

    The US will not need to send troops to protect Israel. Never has. Never will.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Why would Egypt fight Israel?? Israel gave them the Sinai and control of the Suez.

    You mean Israel gave the Sinai and the Suez Canal back to Egypt after it stole them in 1967?
  • ONCE DEVIDEDONCE DEVIDED Posts: 1,131
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Why would Egypt fight Israel?? Israel gave them the Sinai and control of the Suez.

    You mean Israel gave the Sinai and the Suez Canal back to Egypt after it stole them in 1967?

    Egypt attacked isreal in that war, isreal kicked their butt. took some land, then they gave some back

    Im concerned that isreal will continue to be put in a corner by all of this. then they may come out swinging
    worrying times
    but saying that im very happy for all the nations finding their voice finally
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Egypt attacked isreal in that war...

    No they didn't.

    1967:


    'Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).


    A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).


    'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19

    March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).


    After the 1967 war Israel claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war. On the Syrian front, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations that evidenced many similarities to its behavior in the lead up to the Gaza raid of 1955.


    The demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli border was established by agreement on 20 July 1949. Israeli provocations were incessant and enabled Israel to increase and extend its sovereignty by encroachment over the entire Arab area. According to one UN Chief of Staff, Arab villagers were evicted and their homes destroyed (E.L.M. Burns, Between Arab and Israeli, Ivan Obolensky, 1962, pp. 113-114).


    Another Chief of Staff described how the Israelis ploughed up Arab land and "advanced the 'frontier' to their own advantage" (Carl von Horn, Soldiering for Peace, Cassell, 1966, p. 79). Israel attempted to evict the Arabs living on the Golan and annex the demilitarized zone. When the Syrians inevitably responded, Israel claimed that "peaceful" Israeli farmers were being shelled by the Syrians. Unmentioned was the fact that the "farmers" were armed and using tractors and farm equipment to encroach on the demilitarized zone (David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: the Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Faber and Faber, 1984, pp. 213-15). This was part of a "premeditated Israeli policy [..] to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul."


    Shortly after the Syrian response on 7 April 1967, the Israeli Air Force attacked Syria, shooting down six planes, hitting thirty fortified positions and killing about 100 people (Hirst, op. cit., p. 214). It was unlikely that any Syrian guns would have been fired if not for Israel's provocation. Israel's need for water also played a role in the 1967 attack. The invasion completed Israel's encirclement of the headwaters of the Upper Jordan River, its capture of the West Bank and the two aquifers arising there, which currently supply all the groundwater for northern and central Israel.'


    As for Israel 'giving back' the territory it stole in 1967:


    1973:


    'After coming to power in late 1970, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat indicated to the United States that he was willing to negotiate with Israel to resolve the conflict in exchange for Egyptian territory lost in 1967. In February 1971 he offered a full peace treaty to Israel, which it rejected, although international consensus supported the Sadat offer which conformed to the US position (John Kimche, There Could Have Been Peace, Dial, 1973, p. 286).

    When these overtures were ignored by Washington and Tel Aviv, Egypt and Syria launched an coordinated action in October 1973 against Israeli forces occupying the Egyptian Sinai and Syrian Golan Heights. The devastating defeat of 1967 left Israel in control of the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai. Israel rapidly moved to incorporate these occupied territories into its domain. Israel illegally annexed Jerusalem and began establishing colonial settlements in all the occupied territories.

    It was clear that the Arab World could not go on indefinitely watching Israel expel Egyptians, Syrians and Palestinians while installing Jewish settlers in their thousands. By 1973 nearly 100 settlements had been established and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had been displaced, expelled, imprisoned or deported.

    On 6 October 1973 the Egyptian and Syrian armies attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai and on the Golan Heights in an attempt to liberate their territory occupied by Israel. The Secretary-General of the Arab League explained the Arab action: "In a final analysis, Arab action is justifiable, moral and valid under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. There is no aggression, no attempt to acquire new territories. But to restore and liberate all the occupied territories is a duty for all able self-respecting peoples" (Sunday Times, 14 October 1973).'
  • I think Israel would welcome this, so they could steal, take back, take over, whatever you want to call it all of Egypt and have more space to spread out...... :lol::lol::lol::lol:

    The only thing holding back Israel from crushing pretty much everyone in the Middle East and taking it all over is the US. We should stop holding the caged lion back and let it loose on the ones we are protecting from it (and who don't appreciate it). Toot, toot! All aboard!

    Best prepared army the world has ever seen. And if you don't believe it ask yourself if your preceived US protectionism would be able on its own to keep them in existance pretty much under constant attack for 54+ years. Why are they constantly able to "settle" any land they want whenever they want? Because the countries around them know deep down they'd get their arses kicked if they even tried to stop them.

    So, feel free to call it what you want - stealing, taking, whatever. They are the only democratic goverment in the area, and that is in fact important to anyone who believes in freedoms for all people.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    They are the only democratic goverment in the area, and that is in fact important to anyone who believes in freedoms for all people.

    There's nothing democratic about a racist, exclusivist state.

    There's also nothing democratic about a state that attacks Human Rights Groups and media and political freedom:


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12127090

    Israeli MPs back 'McCarthyite' probe on rights groups

    6 January 2011



    Israeli MPs have voted to begin the process of setting up a formal inquiry into foreign funding of rights groups, a move critics say is "McCarthyite".

    The bill accuses local rights groups of damaging the legitimacy of Israel's military by "branding IDF soldiers and commanders as war criminals".

    It was sponsored by the hard-line party of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

    It follows other recent initiatives from the Israeli right, like requiring an oath of loyalty from non-Jews.

    The motion to establish the commission of inquiry will now go to parliament's House Committee for debate, ahead of a full vote before the Knesset.

    MK Fania Kirshenbaum - of Mr Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party - who submitted the proposal, accused human rights groups of branding Israeli soldiers as war criminals.
    Continue reading the main story

    "These groups provide material to the Goldstone commission [which investigated the 2008-2009 Gaza offensive] and are behind the indictments lodged against Israeli officers and officials around the world," Ms Kirshenbaum said.

    A series of arrest warrants for Israeli politicians and military officials have been issued in the last few years, particularly by pro-Palestinian groups in European countries.

    The 41-17 vote brought a storm of protest from local rights groups, including Acri, Btselem, Adalah and the Hotline for Migrant Workers.

    "Persecution and attempts at silencing will not stop us. In a democracy, criticism of the government is not only legitimate - it is essential," said a statement from Btselem, one of the organisations named in the decision.

    The Welfare and Social Services Minister, Isaac Herzog, called it a "political witch hunt" suited to "shady regimes" that would damage Israel's international standing, the Jerusalem Post reported.

    Israel "must be a light unto the world in terms of freedom of speech and freedom to express beliefs, and reject proposals that have the scent of McCarthyism," Mr Herzog said, referring to the 1950s communist witch hunt led by US Senator Joseph McCarthy.
  • Too funny. You actually show they are using a democratic process. It is not the Communist Dictator coming on from high. They put the bill through the prescribed process.

    Now, you may say they are proposing things that are objectionable. But, that happens even in the freest democracies by definition. That's what freedom affords you.

    You are funny. (And just because an article by a critic calls something something doesn't mean it is that something).
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Too funny. You actually show they are using a democratic process. It is not the Communist Dictator coming on from high. They put the bill through the prescribed process.

    Now, you may say they are proposing things that are objectionable. But, that happens even in the freest democracies by definition. That's what freedom affords you.

    You are funny. (And just because an article by a critic calls something something doesn't mean it is that something).

    Great. Now explain to me how a vote in the Knesset - independent of the will of the people - represents democracy?

    Ordering non-Jews to swear allegiance to a Jewish state has nothing to do with democracy.

    The fact is, Israel is an apartheid state by every definition of the word.

    As for the worlds 'freest democracies', what other countries observe and promote ethnic nationalism, i.e, racism?
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    Too funny. You actually show they are using a democratic process. It is not the Communist Dictator coming on from high. They put the bill through the prescribed process.

    Now, you may say they are proposing things that are objectionable. But, that happens even in the freest democracies by definition. That's what freedom affords you.

    You are funny. (And just because an article by a critic calls something something doesn't mean it is that something).

    Great. Now explain to me how a vote in the Knesset - independent of the will of the people - represents democracy?

    Ordering non-Jews to swear allegiance to a Jewish state has nothing to do with democracy.

    The fact is, Israel is an apartheid state by every definition of the word.

    As for the worlds 'freest democracies', what other countries observe and promote ethnic nationalism, i.e, racism?

    First, you reference an initiative. It did not actually take place.

    As for the Parliamentary committee, etc. - again - we may agree that what they are proposing is bad. But, at least it follows a democratic process. It wasn't just the Prime Minister going - and so it shall be. If their populace elects and re-elects this Parliament after doing this, then the will of the people is done. At least they get that chance to elect their officials. That's the point. Everything you are descirbing is part of a democracy. Democracy has it's ugly side. And one would hope it gets booted out of office next chance they get. But, that's how it works.

    If our President were to propose, let's say, a 2,200 page bill that nobody read before approving which requires every citizen to purchase a good that not everyone sees fit to purchase while not addressing the real problem - it's still democracy. We just have to hope intelligence reigns and said President (in such a hypothetical situation) is not re-elected.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    They are the only democratic goverment in the area, and that is in fact important to anyone who believes in freedoms for all people.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/cook01252003.html

    Israeli Democracy
    Fact or Fiction?


    '...A true Democracy must meet two criteria: one philosophical that presents the logic of its argument in a declaration and/or constitution; the other practical that demonstrates how the Democracy implements legislation, distributes resources, and makes equitable all policies and procedures for all its citizens.

    Democracy is first and foremost a concept, a philosophical understanding concerning the rights of humans relative to the government that acts in their name. A Democratic government serves through the manifest consent of the governed. That government receives its authority through the citizens in whom the right resides. Inherent in this philosophical understanding is the acceptance of the rights of all citizens that reside in a state: each and every citizen possesses the right to consent to the legitimacy of those who govern, and each and every citizen must receive equal treatment before the law.

    For a state to claim a Democratic form of government, it must have an established geographic area accepted by other nations as legitimate and defined. The need for established borders is both obvious and necessary with necessity arising out of the obvious. Without borders, there can be no absolute determination of citizenry, and, therefore, no way to fulfill the establishment of the rights noted above. What has this to do with the Democratic state of Israel? Everything.

    Israel has no accepted legitimate borders other than those provided to it by Resolution 181, according to Anthony D'Amato, Leighton Professor of Law at Northwestern University, in his brief "The Legal Boundaries of Israel in International Law": "The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine were delimited in Resolution 181." Since the 1967 war, the borders of the current area controlled by Israel exceed those outlined by the UN in Resolution 181 of 1948 as the current incident in Nazkt Issa illustrates. Despite numerous resolutions from the UN demanding that Israel return to its proper borders, most especially Resolution 242, Israel defies the world body continuing to retain land illegally held. The reality of this dilemma is most manifest in the settlements. Here, Jews residing in Palestinian areas continue to vote while Palestinians literally surround them and cannot vote. Where is the state of Israel? A look at a map would make it appear that Israel has the spotted coloration of a Dalmatian. Clearly, those living under Israeli domination are not considered citizens of the state of Israel even though they reside within parameters controlled by Israel. Since they are not citizens of Israel, and since there is no Palestinian state, these people are without a country and, therefore, without rights; an untenable position for any group which is recognized as a distinct governing group by the UN through its election of the Palestinian Authority as its governing body. That election followed democratic procedures including the creation of a constitution and the international monitoring of the election process.

    A Democratic state must declare the premises of its existence in a document or documents that present to the world the logic of its right to govern. That usually comes in the form of a constitution. Unlike the Palestinians, Israel has no constitution. Chuck Chriss, President of JIA writes, "Israel has no written constitution, unlike the United States and most other democracies. There was supposed to be one. The Proclamation of Independence of the State of Israel calls for the preparation of a constitution, but it was never done." It's been more than 50 years since that "call". Why has Israel demurred on the creation of a constitution? Both Chriss in his article and Daniel J. Elazar, writing in "The Constitution of the State of Israel," point to the same dilemma: how to reconcile the secular and religious forces in Israel. Elazar states: "Israel has been unable to adopt a constitution full blown, not because it does not share the new society understanding of constitution as fundamental law, but because of a conflict over what constitutes fundamental law within Israeli society. Many religious Jews hold that the only real constitution for a Jewish state is the Torah and the Jewish law that flows from it. They not only see no need for a modern secular constitution, but even see in such a document a threat to the supremacy of the Torah"

    The consequences of this divide can be seen in the discrepencies that exist in practice in Israel. While "the State of Israel is described in the Proclamation of Independence as both a Jewish State and a democracy with equal rights for all its citizens," the Foundation Law of 1980 makes clear that Israeli courts "shall decide [a case] in the light of the principles of freedom, justice, equity and peace of Israel's heritage." Without a written constitution, Israel relies on a set of laws encased in Israel's heritage, "some blatantly racist in their assignment of privilege based on religion," according to Tarif Abboushi writing in CounterPunch in June of 2002. But the structure of Israel's governing process that depends on a Knesset is also flawed. According to Chriss, "Members of the Knesset are elected from lists proposed by the parties on a national basis. Following the election, the parties get to assign seats in the Knesset based on their proportion of the national vote, drawing from the party list.Thus, individual MKs owe allegiance to the party chiefs and not directly to the electorate." (Emphasis mine). He goes on to say, "This political system has resulted in some distortions in which Israeli law and government do not reflect the actual wishes of the voting population."

    For a state to claim a Democratic form of government, it must accept the equality of all residents within its borders as legitimate citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, creed, religion, political belief, or gender. For a state to claim it is Democratic and reserve the rights of citizenship to a select group negates its claim. It is an oxymoron to limit citizenship rights to Jews alone and call the state Democratic. As Joel Kovel has stated in Tikkun, "a democracy that is only to be for a certain people cannot exist, for the elementary reason that the modern democratic state is defined by its claims of universality." Yet this inherent contradiction exists in Israel.
    And this brings us from the philosophical phase to the practical one.

    Daniel Elazar, reflecting on this conundrum in the postmodern era, notes that this "makes it impossible for the State to distinguish between the entitlements of Jewish citizens and others based upon obligations and performance; i.e., more benefits if one does military service than if one does not."

    How does Israel implement the Democracy it claims to possess? First, any Jew from anywhere in the world can come to Israel and receive citizenship by virtue of his/her Jewishness. By contrast, a Muslim or Christian Palestinian living in exile because of the 1948 war cannot claim citizenship even though they were indigenous to the area, nor can their descendents claim citizenship. Second, ninety percent of the land in Israel is held in restrictive covenants, land initially owned by Palestinians for the most part, covenants that bar non-Jews from ownership including the Palestinians who hold a limited version of Israeli citizenship. Third, Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian do not share the rights accorded Jews who serve in the military, nor do they receive the benefits extended to those who serve in the military. Non-Jews are taxed differently than Israeli citizens and the neighborhoods in which they live receive less support. As recently as June 12, 2002, Paul Martin writing for the Washington Times noted "Israeli Arabs are trying to strike down a new law reducing family benefits, arguing that it has deliberately been drafted in a way that will affect Arabs more harshly than Jews."

    While Arabs constitute 20% of the population within Israel, their voice in government is limited. Recently, an "expert" working for the General Security Service submitted his "expert opinion" to the Central Election Committee that undertook to disqualify Azmi Bishara and other Arab MKs from taking part in the election. This action would have deprived the Arabs of a voice in the Knesset if it had not been overturned by the Israeli court. The reality of Israeli political parties virtually assures non-representation of the Palestinians in the governing process. Even with Bishara permitted to run, the voice of the Palestinians is muted. As Uri Avnery noted recently, "One glance at the poitical map shows that without the Arab votes, no left-wing coalition has any chance of forming a government ­ not today, nor in the forseeable futureThis means that without the Arabs, the Left cannot even dictate terms for its participation in a coalition dominated by the Right."

    Perhaps the most graphic illustration of the non-democracy that exists in Israel comes from Human Rights Watch and the US State Department reports published in Jurist Law. The range of abuses listed by the State Department includes detainees beaten by police, poor prison conditions that did not meet international standards, detainees held without charge, holding of detainees as bargaining chips, refusal to allow access to Obeid by the Red Cross, imposition of heavier sentences on Arabs than Jews, interference with private rights, etc,, and finally, "Trafficking in women for the purpose of forced prostitution is a continuing problem."

    Human Rights Watch offers a litany of abuses, many more serious than those proferred by the Department of State: Israel has maintained the "liquidation" policy targeting individuals without trial by jury, lack of investigations to determine responsibility for killings and shootings, increased use of heavy weaponry, including F-16 fighter jets etc. against "Palestinian police stations, security offices, prisons, and other installations." HRW also references the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the occupied Territories for the wanton killing of civilians by settlers. The listing is too extensive to offer in its totality here.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Everything you are descirbing is part of a democracy. Democracy has it's ugly side. And one would hope it gets booted out of office next chance they get. But, that's how it works.

    Racist and exclusivist policies aren't democratic.

    Keep chirping little birdy.
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    Everything you are descirbing is part of a democracy. Democracy has it's ugly side. And one would hope it gets booted out of office next chance they get. But, that's how it works.

    Racist and exclusivist policies aren't democratic.

    Keep chirping little birdy.

    I am 100% sure you could find a similar piece on American Democracy. Posting articles that postulize your beliefs do not make them so. I am not cleansing the Israeli government of having policies that do not seem a bit off. But, then again, I don't live in a place where 50 other countries are set to launch missles at me.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    I don't live in a place where 50 other countries are set to launch missles at me.

    And what 50 countries might these be?
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    I don't live in a place where 50 other countries are set to launch missles at me.

    And what 50 countries might these be?

    The ones that don't celebrate Festivus. Along with being an anti-dentite, I'm an anti-anti-Festivite.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Sign In or Register to comment.