...and Democratic?

[Challenger]

docmauser1 et al,
Here is Dr.Mordecai Kedar and Said Abulafia talking about this very specific issue regarding also the Arab Spring, take a look its a very interesting discussion.

Interesting, I agree but not directly relevant to the OP. Dr Kedar's idea will end up creating a hodgpodge of petty states not unlike the Holy Roman Empire of the 16th century, which famously was neither Roman, Holy nor an Empire. The "tribal state" model is outdated, since if Saxons, Bavarians, Wurtemburgers, etc. can now all live together peacfully as Germans, or Scots, Welsh, Irish can do the same as British, or Italians, Germans, French, English, Scottish, Irish, Spanish, Indian, etc as Americans. Arab tribes can do the same. Tribalism only gains momentum as a result of external interference or pressure. I concur that "the West" should get out of the region altogether and let them sort their problems by themselves.

 

[Lipush]

Its double standard, their participation is only dependent on agreement and for looks. Its the same here In the US, if someone wants to be able to talk or get on a committee in Wash when in congress, they had better suck up to Israel, or they will just be taking up space, which many do. The Israel gov is pro Israel.

This is no double standard, so quite the stupid unreasonable argument. If rightwing parties fell because they went against the Israeli law, there is no reason to not act with equality with the Arab parties.

 

[Challenger]

How about the Knesset basic law? Are you familiar with it?

And don'tt try and outsmart me, please. Your sarcasm regarding our democratic movement is driven from ignorancy to the law.

No state allows political parties to go against its constitution, no state should allow it.

Isreal does not have a constitution.

 

[Penelope]

Its double standard, their participation is only dependent on agreement and for looks. Its the same here In the US, if someone wants to be able to talk or get on a committee in Wash when in congress, they had better suck up to Israel, or they will just be taking up space, which many do. The Israel gov is pro Israel.

This is no double standard, so quite the stupid unreasonable argument. If rightwing parties fell because they went against the Israeli law, there is no reason to not act with equality with the Arab parties.

so an opinion in opposition against the Israel right wingers is against the law?

 

[Lipush]

Its double standard, their participation is only dependent on agreement and for looks. Its the same here In the US, if someone wants to be able to talk or get on a committee in Wash when in congress, they had better suck up to Israel, or they will just be taking up space, which many do. The Israel gov is pro Israel.

This is no double standard, so quite the stupid unreasonable argument. If rightwing parties fell because they went against the Israeli law, there is no reason to not act with equality with the Arab parties.

so an opinion in opposition against the Israel right wingers is against the law?

When there is a political party with an ''opinion'', let's call it ''political agenda'' that goes against Israel, or the Knesset basic law, then it's against the law and this party has no place in our government.

 

[Lipush]

How about the Knesset basic law? Are you familiar with it?

And don'tt try and outsmart me, please. Your sarcasm regarding our democratic movement is driven from ignorancy to the law.

No state allows political parties to go against its constitution, no state should allow it.

Isreal does not have a constitution.

Yes it does. Israel has 11 basic laws which act and take place as constitution. Fact that it's not formal doesn't matter. Israel is not the only state without 'formal' constitution, but those laws act and are considered constitutional

 

[Penelope]

Its double standard, their participation is only dependent on agreement and for looks. Its the same here In the US, if someone wants to be able to talk or get on a committee in Wash when in congress, they had better suck up to Israel, or they will just be taking up space, which many do. The Israel gov is pro Israel.

This is no double standard, so quite the stupid unreasonable argument. If rightwing parties fell because they went against the Israeli law, there is no reason to not act with equality with the Arab parties.

so an opinion in opposition against the Israel right wingers is against the law?

When there is a political party with an ''opinion'', let's call it ''political agenda'' that goes against Israel, or the Knesset basic law, then it's against the law and this party has no place in our government.

You mean like most of the members in our government. ha ha.

 

[Lipush]

Its double standard, their participation is only dependent on agreement and for looks. Its the same here In the US, if someone wants to be able to talk or get on a committee in Wash when in congress, they had better suck up to Israel, or they will just be taking up space, which many do. The Israel gov is pro Israel.

This is no double standard, so quite the stupid unreasonable argument. If rightwing parties fell because they went against the Israeli law, there is no reason to not act with equality with the Arab parties.

so an opinion in opposition against the Israel right wingers is against the law?

When there is a political party with an ''opinion'', let's call it ''political agenda'' that goes against Israel, or the Knesset basic law, then it's against the law and this party has no place in our government.

You mean like most of the members in our government. ha ha.

Well, that's not our issue, I'm talking about Israeli politics.

Political party of Rabbi Kahane was taken out due to racism, and due to it going against the Israeli democracy.

Balad goes against Israel as a Jewish state.

If Rabbi Kahane's party was taken out as example of Israeli law being forced upon it, why should Balad keep the long stick?

 

[Penelope]

Your signature writing hurts my eyes, I can't read it, its blurry, ,maybe its me.

Let me as , do you want a two state or one state solution? ( I think I know the answer but thought I'd ask)

 

[Lipush]

Your signature writing hurts my eyes, I can't read it, its blurry, ,maybe its me.

Let me as , do you want a two state or one state solution? ( I think I know the answer but thought I'd ask)

Hey, Indofred's signature hurt my eyes too, don't hear me complaining (much).

As for the question, none of those options are realistic so it's not even a question of opinion.

 

[Penelope]

Your signature writing hurts my eyes, I can't read it, its blurry, ,maybe its me.

Let me as , do you want a two state or one state solution? ( I think I know the answer but thought I'd ask)

Hey, Indofred's signature hurt my eyes too, don't hear me complaining (much).

As for the question, none of those options are realistic so it's not even a question of opinion.

No I mean its blurry. If you want people to read it unblur it.(maybe you don't want people reading it though) So I take it that you want the Pals gone , that is the only option for Israel as far as your concerned.

 

[Lipush]

Your signature writing hurts my eyes, I can't read it, its blurry, ,maybe its me.

Let me as , do you want a two state or one state solution? ( I think I know the answer but thought I'd ask)

Hey, Indofred's signature hurt my eyes too, don't hear me complaining (much).

As for the question, none of those options are realistic so it's not even a question of opinion.

No I mean its blurry. If you want people to read it unblur it.(maybe you don't want people reading it though) So I take it that you want the Pals gone , that is the only option for Israel as far as your concerned.

How did you reach from "no comment" to "you want all pals gone"?

 

[Penelope]

Infofreds is not blurry, yours is. You have no idea what you want, and or refuse to answer , ok, got it. I think you need a 2 state with the lines all the way back to 1948. How's that? Or if by chance you manage to get rid of all Pals and it becomes just a Jewish country, they all Jews need to move there. Sound good.

 

[Humanity]

If laws are in place to stop freedom of speech (political agenda) how can there ever be progress, change?

Doesn't sound very 'democratic' or very much like 'democracy'?

 

[Lipush]

If laws are in place to stop freedom of speech (political agenda) how can there ever be progress, change?

Doesn't sound very 'democratic' or very much like 'democracy'?

The laws are not against freedom of speech, it's against any step that may endanger the public and go against the statues quo.

If you have a party that says that you have no right to exist, you have to accept it in name of "democracy"?

What kind of nonsense is that?

 

[Lipush]

Infofreds is not blurry, yours is. You have no idea what you want, and or refuse to answer , ok, got it. I think you need a 2 state with the lines all the way back to 1948. How's that? Or if by chance you manage to get rid of all Pals and it becomes just a Jewish country, they all Jews need to move there. Sound good.

The lines of 48 are not even an issue anyone talks about, because it's not an issue. At all.

I have no objection that all Jews come to Israel. It's the ideal situation.

 

[Humanity]

If laws are in place to stop freedom of speech (political agenda) how can there ever be progress, change?

Doesn't sound very 'democratic' or very much like 'democracy'?

The laws are not against freedom of speech, it's against any step that may endanger the public and go against the statues quo.

If you have a party that says that you have no right to exist, you have to accept it in name of "democracy"?

What kind of nonsense is that?

Well, I'm going to have to beg to differ with you on this one...

Just as an example...

Remember when it was considered that giving women the right to vote may endanger the public or go against the status quo?

Democracy in action...

 

[Lipush]

If laws are in place to stop freedom of speech (political agenda) how can there ever be progress, change?

Doesn't sound very 'democratic' or very much like 'democracy'?

The laws are not against freedom of speech, it's against any step that may endanger the public and go against the statues quo.

If you have a party that says that you have no right to exist, you have to accept it in name of "democracy"?

What kind of nonsense is that?

Well, I'm going to have to beg to differ with you on this one...

Just as an example...

Remember when it was considered that giving women the right to vote may endanger the public or go against the status quo?

Democracy in action...

Ok, so how about 'endangering the public'?

 

[Challenger]

If laws are in place to stop freedom of speech (political agenda) how can there ever be progress, change?

Doesn't sound very 'democratic' or very much like 'democracy'?

The laws are not against freedom of speech, it's against any step that may endanger the public and go against the statues quo.

If you have a party that says that you have no right to exist, you have to accept it in name of "democracy"?

What kind of nonsense is that?

It's not nonsense, it makes you better than they are. To allow all views to be aired is what makes a democracy a democracy and that includes parties as Kach and Balad. I find reassurance that Britain's democracy is secure when parties like the NF, BNP, UKIP, the Communists and the Monster Raving Loony Party are allowed to state their cases. I don't have to vote for them, it's my choice as a citizen.

 

[Lipush]

Allowing a political party that says you should die is not making you better, it makes you pure stupid.