On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Yea, its a semi-theocracy. Working pretty hard to lose the 'semi' too. Agreed, on both. Don't forget while the Arabs have Muhammed, the Israeli's have Moses. Quote
guyser Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 How so? I'm pretty sure it's a democracy. Where all citizens enjoy the same rights and freedoms. Pretty sure? Or really sure? It is a semi-theocracy. There are no civil marriages and no secular funerals. Grab a bus or train on Saturday? Nope, no can do. The establishment of the state is based on theological reasoning. Every public institution follows dietary laws. So, like ai said, semi-theocracy with definite democratic intentions. Quote
guyser Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 No, it is a democracy and by a huge margin the highest functioning one in the region.Aint saying much now is that? Quote
dre Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) Likud is one political party out of many and not synonymous with Israel. Previous Israeli administrations have been more amenable to the idea, and I'm sure other future ones will be as well. Likud is just one party but zionism is the guiding ideology of almost all recent Israeli governments. Israels goal is to take and permanently keep ALL of that land, and the resources on it, NO MATTER WHAT palestinians do. Thats why expansionism continues whether theres attacks or not. And its going rather well... Its a garden variety conquest of territory and resources as planned from the very beginning, and its gone extremely well considering the challenges involved in actually executing these time of colonialist and expansionist projects in this day and age. Edited July 30, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 All Harper does is spout platitudes and get ignored. "Lecture and leave" it has become known as. Become known as? You mean to that master of foreign policy Joe Clark, who wanted to move our embassy to Jerusalem then famously was backed down into a humiliating change of mind? Clark is a member of that hoary old club of Canadian liberal cliche's which speaks proudly of our 'soft power' even though we never had any. Like the rest of that school, he wants us to speak in a friendly, genial fashion to everyone, whether they're a Hitler or a Pol Pot. We must never condemn, but only speak softly in hopes of changing peoples minds. After all, if a noble country like Canada disapproves, then the Putins of the world will have to reconsider what they're doing! Such a memory is fantasy. All it did was show we were hypocrites who stood for nothing. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) Neither side wants peace. I disagree. They both want peace. It's just that neither can see how to get it given the presence and implacable hostility of the other. There isn't the slightest degree of trust in either of them. Edited July 30, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 And the project is only half done... Israel is slowly but sure taking the rest of that land, Slowly? At the rate they're going it will take them centuries. And the population of both Palestine and Arab Israel grows year by year. In fact, the real question for the future is how violent is the civil war going to be between Arab-Israelis and those crackpot Haradim. Because those will be the largest population groups in Israel in the future. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dre Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Slowly? At the rate they're going it will take them centuries. Conquerying new territory and dealing with the previous inhabitants is complicated in this day and age.... But Its going pretty well... Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Shady Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Pretty sure? Or really sure? It is a semi-theocracy. There are no civil marriages and no secular funerals. Grab a bus or train on Saturday? Nope, no can do. The establishment of the state is based on theological reasoning. Every public institution follows dietary laws. So, like ai said, semi-theocracy with definite democratic intentions. No, it's a democracy. Look up the definition of a theocracy if you need to refresh yourself. Quote
Bonam Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Likud is just one party but zionism is the guiding ideology of almost all recent Israeli governments. Israels goal is to take and permanently keep ALL of that land, and the resources on it, NO MATTER WHAT palestinians do. Thats why expansionism continues whether theres attacks or not. Zionism is the belief that Israel should exist so of course that's gonna be prevalent among Israeli political parties, duh. As for taking and keeping all the land... no, the last administration (Kadima) was in favor of a two state solution where Gaza and the majority of the West Bank go to a Palestinian state, as is the current second most popular party (Yesh Atid). Of course after leaders like Arafat and Abbas rejected proposed land deals on numerous occasions and terrorist attacks continued, popularity for these kinds of platforms dropped and Likud won with a more hawkish policy stance. The same kind of political cycle as anywhere else. As a side note, your map of 2000 severely misrepresents Palestinian vs Israeli areas in the West Bank. Quote
dre Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Zionism is the belief that Israel should exist so of course that's gonna be prevalent among Israeli political parties, duh. I already corrected this... Zionism that belief that Israel should exist on Aretz Yisrael which includes the occupied territories. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Pretty sure? Or really sure? It is a semi-theocracy. There are no civil marriages and no secular funerals. Grab a bus or train on Saturday? Nope, no can do. The establishment of the state is based on theological reasoning. Every public institution follows dietary laws. So, like ai said, semi-theocracy with definite democratic intentions. And you get a clue from a glance at the flag or a scan of their national anthem. All about zionism/Judaism and nobody else. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Fatah has already recognized Israels right to exist, and it has gotten them nowhere. Absolutely NOTHING the palestinians can do will change whats going to happen. Yasser Arafat and Fatah said some words back in 1993, but they were one small player among many, and despite their words continued terrorist attacks against Israel. Between Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah, Israel's never been safe from terror attacks from their close neighbors. Whether it's Fatah or Hamas attacking from Palestinian territories, Israel doesn't really care. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Bonam Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 I already corrected this... Zionism that belief that Israel should exist on Aretz Yisrael which includes the occupied territories. Cite? Most Zionists simply wanted a Jewish state, its exact borders not specified. Quote
Moonbox Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 I am quite aware of what the word means. And just to inform you, it derives from the french word plat, meaning flat, which is a good description of Harper in QP trying to explain his scandal ridden government. So you looked up the definition and etymology of the word. That's adorable. Good for you! Too bad it's still a terrible word to describe Harper's foreign policy, which, if nothing else, often breaks from the UN consensus. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
guyser Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 No, it's a democracy. Look up the definition of a theocracy if you need to refresh yourself. No, it's a semi-theocracy. Look up the definition of a democracy if you need to refresh yourself. See how that works? Semi -theocracy. Nothing really wrong with it.....for them that is. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 So you looked up the definition and etymology of the word. That's adorable. Good for you! Too bad it's still a terrible word to describe Harper's foreign policy, which, if nothing else, often breaks from the UN consensus. No I looked up the etymology, already well aware of the definition and IMO, apptly applied it. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 The rise of fundamentalist militias in Syria has nothing to do with the West. Their LACK of involvement in Syria has been what's angered Syrian rebels, and they blame that for the rise of fundamentalist militias. Nonsense. The west should have pressured the rebels to go to the negotiating table with Assad and we should have worked with Russia rather than use Syria as a proxy war with Russia. The rebels should have given up their demands of Assad stepping down and instead should have tried to get a fair election. If the west acted properly, there would be peace in Syria right now. And trying to distinguish 'good rebels' for 'bad rebels' is difficult because even in groups like the Free Syria army you have significant numbers of Islamist. If you fund the 'moderate rebels' you will indirectly help the extreme rebels. The West doesn't align themselves with 'Islamists'. It aligns itself with friendly, predictable and cooperative governments. Yes, cause the West certainly doesn't align itself with Saudi Arabia or anything... Support of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt? What was that about? It's not like the rebels in Libya had any Islamist elements or anything... *sarcasm* Nobody cares. Apparently a lot of people care because many people are claiming the North Pole. Claiming vast swathes of territory and expecting people to recognize those claims is pointless if you don't have a presence there. So your solution is to claim territory well beyond what should be claimable based upon the Law of the Sea? How does making ridiculous territory claims give Canada a stronger presence? Canada has virtually unparalleled access to the Arctic region, particularly around our archipelago. Our claim is very strong I'm not saying Canada shouldn't make arctic claims. I'm saying that we should claim territory that clearly isn't ours. Like the North Pole for example (which is Danish territory). Russia has all of the blame. Clearly you haven't followed what's been going on in Ukraine over the last ten years, but Ukrainians are dirt poor, unhappy and tired of being bullied by Russia, not to mention the horrible memories of Soviet genocide previous generations of Ukrainians endured. Some? Yes. All? No. I think you've been watching too much Western mainstream media. You are treating Ukrainians as a homogeneous entity when they are not. Do you even understand the divide between the Eastern Ukrainians and the Western Ukrainians? The degree to which the West supported Ukrainian protesters (with cheap words) cannot be compared by a reasonable person to the Russian response, which was to send troops and weapons across the border to seize territory and start a civil war where thousands have died. Look it's not Russians sneaking across the border causing trouble in Ukraine and fighting the Ukrainian military. It is Eastern Ukrainians fighting Western Ukrainians. The Eastern Ukrainians feel alienated by the current government in Kiev and many want to separate from Western Ukraine. Nobody's rejecting the right to self-determination, but there's usually a process and negotiations that go along with it. The Russians militarily enforced a full circumvention of these processes in Crimea and are attempting to do the same in Eastern Ukraine. Clearly you don't see the difference, but that's not surprising. No, the Crimeans circumvented this in Crimea. The Russians only moved in after the referendum (excluding the military base that they had well before the conflict). No, a more neutral approach is implicit permission for Putin to press his ambitions further. History tends to repeat itself, and you don't have to look back far to see how things turn out when you allow a belligerent power to bully its neighbours without consequences. No, a more neutral approach would have reduced polarization & given less propaganda ammunition to the Russians since the West are being hypocritical. You are still characterizing this as Russia bullying Ukraine, when the truth is that the conflict is very much internal between what the Eastern Ukrainians want and what the Western Ukrainians want. It hurts their economy a lot more than it hurts ours, essentially turning the tables on Russia's attempts to economically bully its smaller neighbours. It doesn't matter which economy is hurt more. Pain is pain. And unnecessary damage that accomplishes nothing is bad. If the Russians are pressed hard enough financially, they'll likely back down. They won't back down because they do not think they are in the moral wrong and the West are acting like total hypocrites. They use our unreasonableness as propaganda to support their actions. Much like how Russia did not back down in Syria because they had the moral high ground relative to the West (organ eating for example http://www.thenational.ae/news/video-putin-warns-west-about-arming-organ-eating-syrian-rebels). In the end Russia completely outmaneuvered the West politically, prevented the invasion, and made Obama's 'red lines' look like a joke. Quote
guyser Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 No, it's a democracy. Look up the definition of a theocracy if you need to refresh yourself.No, it's a semi-theocracy. Look up the definition of a democracy if you need to refresh yourself. See how that works? Semi -theocracy. Nothing really wrong with it.....for them that is. But hey, youve gone from pretty sure to adamant. Not bad for a first try . Quote
dre Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Cite? Most Zionists simply wanted a Jewish state, its exact borders not specified. No they want a Jewish state on the land god promised them. Not in Nebraska... Saskatchewan. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/defining-zionism-the-belief-that-israel-belongs-to-the-entire-jewish-people.premium-1.525064#! A Zionist is a person who desires or supports the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, which in the future will become the state of the Jewish people.. That phrase "The land of Israel" has specific meaning. Its a direct translation from "Eretz Yisrael". This is a biblical definition found in Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47. It looks roughly like this... Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
-1=e^ipi Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Neither side wants peace. The Israelis want peace. Many Palestinians also want peace. 1) Israel is not a theocracy. Israel is a secular democratic state. It does have strong religious influences, though not as strong as for example in the US. Maybe theocracy is not the right word, so I will retract my claim. What I meant was that there should be no non-secular states. Israel should abolish special status of Judaism. Look at the declaration of the state of Israel. Full of religion everywhere. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Dec_of_Indep.html "In order to be formally married in Israel, a Jewish couple has to be married by a Rabbi." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Israel Israel is about as secular as the crucifix in the Quebec legislature. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 How so? I'm pretty sure it's a democracy. Where all citizens enjoy the same rights and freedoms. Democracies and theocracies aren't mutually exclusive. Quote
dre Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Yasser Arafat and Fatah said some words back in 1993, but they were one small player among many, and despite their words continued terrorist attacks against Israel. Between Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah, Israel's never been safe from terror attacks from their close neighbors. Whether it's Fatah or Hamas attacking from Palestinian territories, Israel doesn't really care. Israels desire to permanently keep those territories has nothing to do with any attacks by Arabs. They want the land because it has high biblical and practical importance, and they always knew the arabs with fight them... If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that? Thats a quote from Ben Gurion known as the "founding father of Israel". Arab resistance was expected and planned for. When you steal land that millions of other people call their home, violence is a forgone conclusion. But theres more to it than that. The weak and innefectual resistance offered up by the arabs has actually been a godsend for Israel. They have used it as an excuse to TRIPLE in size, and sieze 2/3's of their water supply. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 The Israelis want peace. Not the ones in control and the people that support them. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) What I meant was that there should be no non-secular states. Israel should abolish special status of Judaism.Why? Because you prefer states that conform your "secular" religion? It is important that personal liberty be respected, however, any community is entitled to decide what it is important to them. Edited July 30, 2014 by TimG Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.