babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Israel's election: Disaster vs Calamity

83 replies [Last post]

Comments

Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004
I'm curious to what extent "strategic voting" occurs in Israel.  Their electoral system is entirely based on PR - 20% of the vote = 20% of the seats, period.  There aren't any electoral districts at all.

Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
There is still some strategic voting. First of all, since a party needs to win 2% of the vote to qualify for any seats, people who are thinking of voting for a small party that is hovering near the threshold (ie: the Green Party) might decide not to risk "wasting their vote". The other factor is that there is some tradition in Israel (though its not a hard and fast rule) that the President gives the party with the most seats the first crack at forming a government - so when at the last minute suddenly it looks like a tossup between Kadima and Likud for which will be the biggest party - people who had been planning to vote for smaller parties on the left or right might switch at the last minute to one of the big two - not unlike some stupid people in canada thinking that they have to vote Liberal to make sure the Liberals end up as the biggest party.

Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Looking at the election results I have a hard time finding a viable coalition led by Kadima other than a Grand Coalition with a very limited political programme. It looks like Netanyahu will be the next PM.

josh
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2002
I tend to agree.

Star Spangled C...
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2008

Caissa wrote:
Looking at the election results I have a hard time finding a viable coalition led by Kadima other than a Grand Coalition with a very limited political programme. It looks like Netanyahu will be the next PM.

With Avigdor Lieberman as defence minister. 


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003

Quote:
There are extremists on both sides - on the Palestinian side AND the Israeli side and they have a joint vested interest in keeping the conflict going.

 

But on the Israeli side of this tidy dichotomy the extremists control the fourth most powerful military in the world, are given three billion dollars of weapons per year by their sugar daddy/uncle, and have nukes.

 

Quote:

"This isn't tragedy, unless you seriously believe the Zionist project was ever a humanitarian endeavour, and not the genocidal larceny that it always has been. The state of Israel is founded on theft and murder.  What use is there pretending otherwise?"

...can only [sic] be interpreted as a viciously hateful message singling out an entire nationality as being based on "hate and murder" you should be ashamed of yourself for posting a mesage so totally dripping with HATE. 

 Maybe you should try breathing into a paper bag before posting.

The Zionist massacres and terrorist attacks against the indigenous population drove over 700,00 Palestinians out of their homes and into exile, allowing the Zionists to steal their land.  In other words, the Zionist state is founded on murder and theft.  This is hardly an outrageous assertion. 

 

 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

So if you can blame every ill in the Middle East on "Zionism", what do you blame the situation in Sri Lanka on? "Sinhalism"? And is the situation in Tibet all about evil "Sinoism"? and i guess we can blame the situation in Chechnya or in Kosovo on "pan-slavism"?

You have two people fighting over a piece of land. "Zionism" is irrelevant to the situation now and the use of the word "Zionism" in such a pejorative way verges on being anti-semitic. If you don't like the policies of the Israeli government - that's all you have to say. There are about 6 million Israelis, the vast majority of whom are Jewish and most of whom aren't particularly religious and probably don't know Theodore Herzl from a six foot hole in the ground. They are just people born in Israel who speak Hebrew and to them its their country and they their reaction to having rockets fired at them is about the same as how we in Canada would react if rockets from Kanesetake were constantly falling downtown Montreal.

For all the lofty language - that's really all it is - two ethnic groups each with their own version of history - fighting over a piece of land. Let's not pretend there is anythingmore to it than that.

 


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003

Quote:
So if you can blame every ill in the Middle East on "Zionism"...

 "Every ill in the Middle East"?  Get a grip there, Stock.  I blame the creation and maintenance of the state of Israel on Zionism, nothing else.

 

Quote:
They are just people born in Israel who speak Hebrew and to them its their country and they their reaction to having rockets fired at them is about the same as how we in Canada would react if rockets from Kanesetake were constantly falling downtown Montreal.

 

This eyelash-batting about a few ineffectual rockets becomes sillier every time it is invoked.  During the six-month truce between Hamas and the Israelis there were hardly any rockets fired, and none of them caused any more damage than sporadic anxiety.  The IOF was still killing Arab women and children during that time mind you, but that doesn't count, does it?

Quote:
There are about 6 million Israelis, the vast majority of whom are Jewish and most of whom aren't particularly religious and probably don't know Theodore Herzl from a six foot hole in the ground.

 Few of whom were refusinks when called to do their obligatory IOF service, and most of whom think the Gaza Ghetto massacre was justified.

 

 

 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

People have been killed and injured by these Hamas rockets. If really has such bad aim and if they really aren't capable of doing any damage - why launch any at all? It is a certainty that just as sure as night follows day - rockets launched from Gaza will absolutely definitely lead to Israeli retaliation. The only conclusion is that Hamas WANTS Israel to attack Gaza because that's the only thing that their rocket attacks can possibly lead to. 

If there is some other strategy behind launching the rockets, i'd like to know what it is - because it sure isn't advancing the cause of the Palestinians...or maybe it is - someone explain to me what Hamas hopes to accomplish to firing rockets at Israeli cities.

"Few of whom were refusinks when called to do their obligatory IOF service, and most of whom think the Gaza Ghetto massacre was justified."

...all of which is counterbalanced by all the Hamas militia members who think that suicide bombings on civilian targets in Israel is justified.

I'm glad i don't leave in a part of the world where so many people on both sides has been so dehumanized.


Frustrated Mess
Offline
Joined: Feb 23 2005

Quote:
For all the lofty language - that's really all it is - two ethnic groups each with their own version of history - fighting over a piece of land. Let's not pretend there is anythingmore to it than that.

That's all there is to it? The Israeli hate, open racism, embrace of fascism, ethnic cleansing, Jewish only roads and pass laws, theft of land, destruction of agriculture, the daily brutality and humiliations, the Gaza Ghetto, all of this is a mere spat to you? What a knucle-dragging jerk you are. 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

I wouldn't call it a "spat". Ethnic groups fighting over a piece of land can lead to a loss of millions of lives on both sides. The bloodiest war in history was WW1 - and guess what - it wasn't about Zionism!! it was about a power struggle between countries. In the last two years over 2 million people have died in a war in the Congo - i don't think either side was fighting in the name of any particular "ism" - they are just struggling for power.

I realize some people would rather try to "blame the Jews" for the whole conflict (just like some people in Germany think the Jews are responsible for WW2 and WW1) - than acknowledge that its just people fighting for land.

I'm sorry if by disputing your claim that "Zionism" is some inherently evil ideology I've ruined your fun.I'm sure that if someone tried to link suicide bombings in Israel to "evil Islamism" you be shrieking "racist" at them.

Then again, maybe the Greeks and the Turks aren't just fighting over Cyprus - its all about "evil genocidal Hellenism". 

 


Cueball
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2003

Way to prove the point Stocky.

What if people were to go around saying: "oh but you don't understand, WWII was just about people fighting over some territory. What else is new? Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, its all just another 'ism'. I know it spoil your fun to dispute your claim that Nazism is an inherently evil ideology... and I realize some people would rather try to "blame the Germans" for the whole conflict..."

 LOL.

Fucking fascists are all the same. Just change the names around. They can't even see that they are saying exactly the same thing because they are so stuck in their personal ethnic prejuduce. It's a sickness, really.

No Stocky, I blame the German Facists for WWII, not the German people. Just like I blame the Israeli fascist for the oppression of Palestinians. And guess what? They call themselves Zionists.


Caissa
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2006

There are Israeli socialists who also call themselves Zionists. The use of Zionist as a pejorative a la liberal in the United States is wearying.

 Was the calling of Stockholm "an apologist for genocide" fair game on Babble?


Stargazer
Offline
Joined: Jun 9 2004

Yes, it was. I don't know what else you would call a person who continually spoke of those nasty rockets being fired upon the people of Israel without showing even remote concern for the people of Palestine, except to blame them for their own genocide.

All of this in the points above and here you are Caissa, defending Stockholm, who apparently needs no defending. 

 


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
I've expressed concern about the loss of life on both sides countless times. I'd like to know whether you ever give a hoot about the victims of suicide bombings and rockets in Israel - or are you an so-called apologist for genocide as long as its directed at Israelis.

Star Spangled C...
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2008
Stargazer wrote:

Yes, it was. I don't know what else you would call a person who continually spoke of those nasty rockets being fired upon the people of Israel without showing even remote concern for the people of Palestine, except to blame them for their own genocide.

The population of both gaza and the West Bank have continuously risen. If this is "genocide" then it's the most incompetent genocide ever.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Stockholm wrote:
I've expressed concern about the loss of life on both sides countless times.

Yeah, in WWII also. It was tragic, the senseless killings of Allies and Nazis. And Afghanistan, imagine, the villagers from Kandahar and the villagers from Nova Scotia. Just so senseless, all that loss of life. And the thousands of Palestinians and the dozens ones of Israelis. What's it all about? Life is just so fucked. People dying. I wish it would all just stop. They shouldn't die, they should live.

Quote:
I'd like to know whether you ever give a hoot about the victims of suicide bombings...

In Kabul? Sri Lanka? You're obviously not talking about Israel.

 

Quote:
... or are you an so-called apologist for genocide as long as its directed at Israelis.

Excellent point. And you've helped me along to some self-awakening. Since October 2001, I have hoped and preached for the Afghan people to militarily defeat their invaders - which will happen one day very soon. But your eloquent remarks have made me realize that in so hoping, I have actually become an apologist for genocide as long as it's directed against U.S., Canadian, and NATO invading troops!!!

Thank you for clarifying the profound difference between victim and murderer. Imagine, all these years, I had it all backwards!


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
As far as I'm concerned the only way that anyone is a so-called apologist for genocide is if they try to argue that the Nazis were justified in building gas chambers at Auschwitz. Regrettably wars kill people and that is tragic, but bandying around the word genocide to describe any deaths at all in any conflict only cheapens the meaning of the word. If EVERY time anyone dies in a war it is "genocide" - then if everything is genocide nothing is genocide. 

Stargazer
Offline
Joined: Jun 9 2004
Dude, it IS genocide, and only you appear to think otherwise.

Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
Obviously, in your view anytime people from the side you root for die - you call it "genocide" and anytime people from the side you oppose die - its "collateral damage" - how convenient.

martin dufresne
Offline
Joined: Dec 24 2005

Labor comes in fourth in the Israel election, behind three more explicitly RW parties. Now, could someone explain to me how Israel Jews are somehow NOT to be held responsible for their government's actions?


melovesproles
Offline
Joined: Apr 15 2005
Martin, Labour was led by the Defence Minister responsible for the recent Gaza massacre.  It is hard to think of many things more depressing than Israeli elections for anyone in favour of social justice and peace.  But I don't see the point in placing collective responsibility on all 'Israeli Jews', there are exceptions and it can't be easy being one in that society. 

josh
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2002
martin dufresne wrote:

Labor comes in fourth in the Israel election, behind three more explicitly RW parties. Now, could someone explain to me how Israel Jews are somehow NOT to be held responsible for their government's actions?

Well, in terms of willingness to reach a deal with the Palestinians, there's little difference between Kadima and Labor. 


al-Qa'bong
Offline
Joined: Feb 27 2003

Quote:
I'm sorry if by disputing your claim that "Zionism" is some inherently evil ideology I've ruined your fun.I'm sure that if someone tried to link suicide bombings in Israel to "evil Islamism" you be shrieking "racist" at them.

 Funny you should raise this issue now.  Earlier today I read something that covers much the same ground:

 

Quote:
 

In reality, the basic problem stems from the principles on which Israel was founded, that is, that it is legitimate for certain persons, by virtue of a property acquired at birth (to be “Jewish”) to occupy the land of other persons on whom the accident of birth failed to confer that property.

  Invoking the Bible or the holocaust as justification for that occupation changes nothing as to its intrinsically racist character, that is, the fact that it is based on a crucial distinction between individuals solely related to their birth.

This racist aspect is clear to the victims and to all those who identify with them, especially the populations of the Arab-Muslim world and parts of the Third World, to whom the Zionist project recalls previous painful experiences of European colonialism.  But it is almost never acknowledged in the debate in the West.

It must be stressed that this is not a matter of “ordinary” racism, of the attitudes that are unfortunately held by many individuals – a subjective and largely passive racism, regrettable but with limited consequences. Here it is a matter of an institutionalized racism, enforced by the structures of the State. Now, it is usually such State racism that is considered in our Western democracies to be an attribute of the  “extreme right”, and that is denounced as “incompatible with our values”, “contrary to modernity and the Enlightenment”, and so on. 

 This is the racism that led to a general condemnation of Apartheid in the Republic of South Africa and its ruling ideology. The only exception is Zionism, even though it is an ideology that legitimatizes an institutionalized racism.

 

 


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

I don't know if there is any likelihood of this happening, but it would be possible to keep both Lieberman and Netanyahu, who are electoral allies, out of government.

Shas, UTJ plan obstructive bloc against Lieberman 

Such a government would have:

Kadima 28

Labour 13

Shas 11

UTJ 5

National Union 4

Jewish Home 3

Meretz 3

Total 67

Of course, it would be much better to include Hadash and the United Arab List instead of National Union and Jewish Home. Perhaps this is not the year for that.

Shas had been in the previous Kadima-led coalition, but would not reach a deal with Livni, causing the election. A bad gamble on their part: they dropped from 12 seats to 11. To stop Lieberman, can they admit they were wrong?

 


josh
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2002

National Union and Meretz together?  Don't think so.

It looks like it will be one of two coalitions, both headed by Netanyahoo.  Either Likud will head a far right coalition of 65 seats, or Kadima will join Likud with Lieberman's party and one or more of the religious parties.  Labor and Meretz are headed into opposition either way.

 


Star Spangled C...
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2008

What's really interesting are the trends that were revealed in the election.

Just like America got divided into blue states and red states, Tel Aviv and jerusalem are becoming polar opposites. Almost half of jerusalem residents boted for either UTJ (the Ashkenazi ultra-orthodox party) or Shas (the Sephardi) ultra-orthodox party and Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu both did well with Kadima gettting smoked and Labout getting even more smoked. The story is jsut the opposite in tel Aviv which is alrgely secular. But given that the orthodox population is rising many many times faster than the secular population, we can only guess at how things will go 20 years from now...


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002
Don't forget the impact of the huge influx of Russian Jews. They tend to be very anti-religious, but also very authoritarian and hawkish on security issues (these are people who probably want an Israeli equivalent of Vladimir Putin!).

Star Spangled C...
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2008
Well, from teh link someone psoted above, it seems the haredi (ultra-orthodox) parties are not too fond of lieberman. Lieberman wants to bring in civil marriage and to relax standards on conversion. he's more of a foreign policy hawk. The orthodox parties are more about religious issues.

aka Mycroft
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2004
Ha'aretz was reporting earlier this week that Meretz and Labour are talking about merging.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments